Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 105 (since 2014-04-16 22:08:06)

Interested in: history of the Middle East, especially in historical Palestine, culture, identity, human rights.

Showing comments 105 - 101
Page:

  • Double standard seen as Israel sentences minors involved in Abu Khdeir murder to prison but no punitive measures
    • @Mayhem
      w8, what? "disputed"- rly? Despite all the international law, etc. you still call it like that? Yoram Dinstein, Benvenisty, below I give other names, you can read their works about the occupation.

      First: deal with the fact there was Palestinian Mandate that was categorised as "A". What does that mean?:
      The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights, in a 1990 document titled "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988, Part I 1917-1947:
      ...The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political maturity of the territory concerned. The most developed would be classified as 'A' Mandates.... All the mandates over Arab countries, including Palestine, were treated as class 'A' Mandates, applicable to territories whose independence had been provisionally recognized in the Covenant of the League of Nations.
      REPEAT: TERRITORIES WHOSE INDEPENDENCE HAD BEEN PROVISIONALLY RECOGNIZED.

      NEXT: The partition was ONLY added because of the internal conflict. Palestinian independence was still actual, even after 1947!!
      Palestinian Government did in fact declare independence on 1 October 1948, as the partition resolution required - Zionist did it earlier - why? Flapan in "Birth of israel" answers that question well.

      NEXT: In the resolution the name "Jewish" was used because there was no particular name to use, it didn't mean that future state was to be "Jewish"- whatever that's supposed to mean..., in fact even in the "Jewish" part Jews weren't to be the majority. UN partition plan envisioned that there would be a Palestinian Arab majority (Arabs=509.780, Jews= 499.020 in Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. Report of Sub-Committee 2: unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf on page 41)- Zionists knew that very well...

      People in that state didn't have any right to any territory beyond the borders for that state.

      Palestinians- AS THE SOVEREIGN- decided that they need help. Both Gaza Strip and West Bank [as it was later called]- were never annexed to Egypt and Jordan.
      THEY NEVER GAVE UP THEIR SOVEREIGNTY to Jordan during the Jericho Congress. Every time the Palestinian issue came up during Arab League meetings it was confirmed that Palestinians are a sovereign nation, and are not part of any other state (Palestinian territory belongs to them), like in Rabat 1974. UN did the same [example, res. no 605, 607, 608].
      http://www.passia.org/publications/information_papers/Jordan-Disengagement-eng.htm
      Shlaim, The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza or Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists and Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine, by Weldon Matthews.

      In 1967 Israel STARTED the war [http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/folks-talking-palestine/#comment-739890] and even that has no meaning because NO TERRITORY CAN BE GAINED THROUGH WAR, since any government can say it was only defending itself!
      Read this report[its online]:“Pre-emptive War:” the Six Day War Revisited Ersun N. Kurtulus AND Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross & Keren Michaeli "Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Terrority".

      You should deal with the facts already.

      Future "Jewish" territory was that of the 1947 Partition Plan + 1949 armistice agreement- NOTHING BEYOND THAT- The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.
      REMEMBER that Palestinians also declared independence as Zionist did, after the termination of the Palestine Mandate, Palestinians used the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. That meant they could determine their own political status.They asked Transjordan and Egypt for help, but they STILL HAD their SOVEREIGNTY as confirmed by other Arab states and the UN. Jordan NEVER ANNEXED Palestine! The same goes for Gaza Strip- it was never annexed by Egypt.

      In no way that territory is disputed: it belongs to the Palestinians. Zionists can't do anything outside 1947 Partition Plan and 1949 armistice lines. After 1967 Israel ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED the territory. The reports are above.

      As to your other nonsense... Palestinians DON'T have to PROVE they will live in peace alongside Israel to get rid of the illegal Israeli occupation (OMG, how? How would Israel prove that itself, that it will live in peace with others?!, how can any other country do that?) Since when a nation must do that to gain independence?- look how Israel was created. Israel attacked its neighbours many times - and? There is international law to uphold, but that's it. What you write is pure nonsense.

  • 'An Arab is an Arab'
    • You are mixing 2 different things with each other. Using the name Palestine by Zionists doesn't mean they were using the same national narrative and had the same goals as Palestinian Arabs- fyi they definitely did not! In fact Zionists later opposed the name, since they figured the British- as the Balfour Declaration stated- weren't going to create a state for the Jews, but a state for all of its residents. Also they didn't want to associate themselves with Arab Palestinian nationalism, because they were getting more and more aware of it and wanted to distinguish their own nationalism from the Palestinian one.
      Zionists wanted a state for Jews. There was a time though, that there was a discussion about a federation with other Arab states- short lived. Some Zionists even accused each other of treason because of that.
      About Arab-Jewish relations in Haifa or economic relations in general read Zachary Lockman "Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906–1948" or "Arab workers and Arab Nationalism in Palestine: A view from Below" in: Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle East, ed. James Jankowski, Israel Gershoni- about how Zionists used Palestinian workers to gain their own goals.

      The local Jewish-Arab relations are a different subject:
      Ammiel Alcalay, "After Jews And Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture"
      Menachem Klein, "Lives in Common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron"
      M. Campos, Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine
      More on Zionist-Palestinian relations, for example:
      Y. Ben-Bassat, E. Ginios, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule, I.B. Tauris, London 2011
      Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness

    • @"Now, talk among yourselves ..."So you are running away from discussion? I will deal with Arendt in a sec, but first I must say it is funny that you wrote: "From what I can see this identity was created in late 60's"- most Zionists say that it was 1948 [to deny the fact that Palestinian nationalism was in development since XIX/XX], some radicals say it was in 1964 when PLO was created [what creation of PLO has to do with development of Palestinian identity, which even Israeli scholars argue it is in development since XIX/XX century- fyi all national identities are in constant development, as research on nationalism itself shows us, read for example Craig Calhoun "Nationalism"], but you went and wrote even late 60's ;p
      Below I give you links to my other posts on the subject, which contain comments and literature about Palestinian and Zionist nationalism.

      Did you read Arendt's book yourself? Or any other of her writings for that matter? What you wrote is completely wrong. She advocated a binational solution to Palestine – a single political commonwealth with two national identities, integrated in a federation with other countries in the region. As Eric L. Jacobson adds: "In the crucial period leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel, Arendt became increasingly disillusioned with theJewish Agency and the Zionist movement for failing to organize a Jewish response to Nazism (a Jewish Army) and rejecting the Palestinian right to a homeland". Read his article " Why did Hannah Arendt Reject the Partition of Palestine?". She was well aware of the Arab Palestinian nationalism and what Zionism wanted to do. She didn't argue that there was 1 Palestinian identity there! She argued for BINATIONAL solution to Palestine- do you see the difference now or not?
      He also writes: "Arendt’s critique of Zionism point to the question of why Zionism failed to achieve natural allies and sought instead partnerships with the lions. Its national idea, she wrote, was largely influenced by German nationalism, itself missing a vital element found in the national revolutions of France, Italy and also America: the concept of the sovereignty of the people".
      Links about the development of Palestinian identity since XIX/XX century [before masses of Zionists immigrated to Palestine] are below. Palestinian nationalism developed because of the rise of the so called Islamic renaissance; Arab nationalism; Ottoman nationalism and of course it was the outcome of local interactions and socio-political and cultural environment. PLO could be created and work among Palestinians because of the already existing Palestinian nationalism- it didn't create it! Nationalism is not an easy process that can be ad hoc created and then magically work.... the same goes for Zionism and any other nationalism in the world.
      For example:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin/#comment-732760
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin/#comment-732844

      1.Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History: Baruch Kimmerling
      2.H. Gerber, Remembering and Imagening Palestine, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2008
      3.And his “‘Palestine’ and Other Territorial Concepts in the 17th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 30 (1998)
      4.Doumani, Beshara, “Rediscovering Ottoman Palestine: Writing Palestinians into History.” Journal of Palestine Studies 21(2) (1992)
      5.Doumani, Beshara, Rediscovering Palestine: Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995)
      6.R. Khalidi, Palestinian Identity
      7.J. Bussow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1972-1908
      8.A. Manna, Ottoman Period, Late, [in:] Encyclopedia of the Palestinians…,ed.Ph. Mattar
      9.B. Abu-Manneh, The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century.
      10.Weldon C. Matthews, Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation. Arab Nationalists and Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine.
      11. M. Campos, Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2011
      12.Y. Ben-Bassat, E. Ginios, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule, I.B. Tauris, London 2011
      13.L Fishman, The 1911 Haram Al-Sharif Incident: Palestinian Notables Versus The Ottoman Administration, "Journal of Palestine Studies", vol. XXXIV no.3, 2005
      14.Ben-Bassat, Yuval. “Rural Reactions to Zionist Activity in Palestine before and after the Young-Turk Revolution of 1908 as Reflected in Petitions to Istanbul
      15.Ben-Bassat, Yuval. "Mass Petitions as a Way to Evaluate ‘Public Opinion’ in the Late Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire? The Case of Internal Strife among Gaza's Elite," Turkish Historical Review, 4 (2013)
      16.Ben-Bassat, Yuval- Petitioning the Sultan: Protests and Justice in Late Ottoman Palestine

      About Zionism:
      1.Kimmerling B., The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society, and the Military, University of California Press, 2001
      2.Ohana D., The shaping of Israeli identity: myth, memory, and trauma, Routledge
      3.Orr A., Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, 1994 4.Oz A., The Sabra: the creation of the new Jew, University of California Press, 2000
      5.Piterberg G., The Returns of Zionism: Myths, Politics and Scholarship in Israel, Verso, 2008
      6.Shabi R., We Look Like the Enemy: The Hidden Story of Israel's Jews from Arab Lands, Walker & Company, 2008
      7.Sternhell Z.,The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State, Princeton University Press, Nowy Jork 1999 8.Yehuda N., Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995
      9.Yehuda N., Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada, Humanity Books, 2002
      10.Zerubavel Y., Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition, University Of Chicago Press, 1995
      11.Ammiel Alcalay, "After Jews And Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture" 12."Lives in Common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron"

      In short: you wrote nonsense.

  • State Dep't slams Netanyahu's Hitler story as 'inflammatory' and against 'scholarly evidence'
    • Emet: "read Mark Twain...". Have you read it?
      Read American Palestine by Hilton Obenzinger.
      Twain sardonically uncovers crudities, fraud, or illusion in place of the expected authenticity, exoticism, beauty, or, particularly in the Holy Land, spirituality.
      Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad (1869) resulted from his excursion in Europe and the eastern Mediterranean with a group of American innocents. Unlike other enchanted grounds the excursionists visited in Europe and the Levant, Palestine's associations are entangled in strange ways in America's own acts of self-construction: it was "home" and not home.
      Innocents Abroad is written through the ironic screen of a typical American narrator through which Twain satirizes both Holy Land travel and American mannerisms.

      Quoting Mark Twain out of context on Palestine
      http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Articles/Story845.html

      As B. Ra'ad writes:
      Twain was one of the most severest critic of sacred geography and of the missionaries back then. Mocking sacred geographers, those who sentimentalized and appropriated Palestine as “the Holy Land,” is the main target of Twain’s Innocents Abroad and Melville’s Clarel. Twain in particular is satirical about biblical accounts about Palestine and the invention of sacred places. What the Zionists hang on to is his saying that Palestine was “barren.” But he says the same thing about Greece and its islands. Then, for Melville, barrenness is an essential quality that has profound significance.
      Palestine is both green and barren in places, as it has been for millennia and as is still today. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that if the Zionists misuse some writers we should believe that and so dislike them. Our task instead should be to retrieve them and their integrity and greatness from the clasps of Zionist abuse.
      More fundamentally, both writers saw in Palestine the model on which the US national myth was built, that of the “Promised Land,” whose original people (the American “Indians”) have to be exterminated and replaced by those chosen by Yahweh. It is a model they rejected and deconstructed. Melville and Twain were truly the first anti-Zionists in the West, though perhaps not in the sense that we understand it today. They were against fundamentalism and monomania, against self-centered obsessions, against the use and abuse of religion to serve self-interested, colonial ambitions. Why do you think Melville was attacked after writing Typee? Why did he print his epic work Clarel only for private circulation? Why is Huck Finn not taught in some US high schools? Of course patriots and others want to appropriate such writers as much as they can, and try to forget that they are critical of the fundamentals of the US system and now of Zionist underpinnings. We should save Melville, Twain and others from from such use.
      Returning to Twain’s Innocents Abroad, his narrator ironically doubles Palestine and the US as “home,” and his creation of a self-ironic narrator must be understood if the work as a whole is to be understood. The narrative is constantly shifting in its tone and the position of its narrator, which is difficult to consider for what is regarded as a travel narrative. There is that haunting passage in Innocents where the narrator looks at the people in the north of Palestine and expresses the pioneering sentiment that the requirement of pity makes the white man feel so angry that he wants to “exterminate” the whole lot... throughout Innocents the narrator ridicules the biblical narratives, i.e. the sentimentalizing of sheer violence and murder, and the sacred geographers, who are his main target, e.g. Grimm, Robinson, and Thomson, whom he mentions by name and quotes to show their delusions. In fact, at one point Twain says that the Bedouin Arabs are the only remnant left of the “Israelites.” There is a lot more to say there. The important emphasis is Twain’s deconstruction of the US national myth of origins, which of course the Zionists are good at glossing over and people generally want to avoid seeing.
      More in his book: Hidden Histories: Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean.

      Also read this:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/morris-zionism-aliyah

    • oh Emet :D you are a funny man with a typical style of writing :) Of course you would write that I want Israel destroyed, no 1 can question the only truth right?- the zionist one :) That only makes you a person that has nothing to say about the matter but only cheap lines ;p
      There where illegal settlements build by Jews during Ottoman times [without permits, etc.] Settlers to gain more land used to attack nearby Arab villages- as I said read Yuval Ben-Bassat and others on the issue :)

      "Where Jews in Jerusalem long before Islam was established?"
      Since when ethnicity=religion, hmm?? You do know that there were several Arab migrations to the region before Islam, right? You do know that never in history Jerusalem was inhabited only by Jews, right? [even the Bible has info about that:)] It never belonged only to Jews [I hope that at least you know Jews didn't build Jerusalem...]. The land of Palestine was always multiethnic and never in history was inhabited only by Jews... and I see you don't know the dif. between Hebrews or Israelites, etc... go figure.... Do you think that in the 7th century a handful of people magically replaced local people? rly?
      You must also read more about historic Palestine and Jerusalem, about their autonomy throughout history, how muslim [and christian] families developed it, how it was perceived by the locals, etc- in Chaim's Gerber book you will have the basics covered.
      Also you can try:
      1.J. Bussow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872-1908, Brill, Leiden 2011
      2.Jerusalem: From the Ottomans to the British, by Roberto Mazza
      3.B. Abu-Manneh, The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century, [in:] The Israel/Palestine Question,ed. I. Pappe, Routledge, London
      4.B. Doumani, Rediscovering Palestine. Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900, University of California Press, Berkeley
      5.A. Manna, Ottoman Period, Late, [w:] Encyclopedia of the Palestinians...
      6.M. Campos, Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2011
      7.Y. Ben-Bassat, E. Ginios, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule, I.B. Tauris, London 2011

      You really have no idea about the history of the region, that is why you resort to those funny accusations of yours- as I said very typical for ppl like you ;p

      "Do Jews have a greater right over Jerusalem than Muslims? They certainly do"- wow where did you get that? Is there such a thing? Based on what? ;>

      ps. thank you guys! I also appreciate your articles and comments! They are very informative :)

    • Page: 1
    • and for your second statement: "Al-huseini visited Hitler and ask him to burn the Jews"
      Bibi definitely based his words on a poorly written book by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz- they received good reviews mostly from Daniel Pipes fun club: the Middle East Forum and friends ;D
      Late Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz, claim that mufti was actually responsible for the mass killing of the Jews of the Holocaust.
      They formulate the theory that Haj Amin was the architect of the Holocaust and that he had so much power over Hitler and his cronies that he was, in effect, the perpetrator of the mass murder of the Jews of Europe. Much of the material to support this comes from Fritz Grobba (former German envoy to Kabul, Baghdad and Riyadh, and Muslim-Arab affairs officer in the Nazi foreign ministry). But they don't show any independent documentary confirmation of it!!
      The earliest accusations seem to stem from the circle of Rudolf Kastner, whose Zionist "rescue" operation dickered with Adolf Eichmann for Jewish emigration in return for trucks and other supplies in Budapest in 1944. Shortly after the war Kastner submitted an affidavit to British authorities in which he claimed that Eichmann's subordinate Dieter Wisliceny had told Kastner he was convinced that the mufti had "played a central role in the decision to exterminate the Jews." Rather than indict Husseini at Nuremberg, the British dismissed this and other charges as Zionist propaganda. (Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem [NY: Columbia University Press, 1988], pp. 105-107).
      But in Rubin and Schwanitz book the notion that al-Husaini played a key role in Hitler’s settling on the Final Solution is based on one piece of thin hearsay evidence: comments that the controversial Hungarian Jewish leader Rudolf Kastner attributed to Eichmann’s subordinate Dieter Wisliceny. (Rubin and Schwanitz oddly credit the comments to Eichmann himself.)

      Jeff Blankfort read the piece carefully and passed along this comment: Dershowitz’s statement that the Mufti "personally stopped 4,000 children, accompanied by 500 adults, from leaving Europe and had them sent to Auschwitz and gassed," is almost word for word from the FIRST part of a sentence by Raul Hilberg, on p. 504 of the "Destruction of the European Jews." According to Hilberg, "4,000 children, accompanied by 500 adults reached Palestine and for that reason he [Mufti] asked the German Foreign Minister to do his utmost to prevent further immigration from Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary." That’s it in 790 pages. There is no any other mention of the Mufti until the end of the book when the American Jewish Conference wanted him prosecuted as a war criminal- the evidence that he was involved in any way with the Nazi extermination operation does not appear to be in Hilbergs book.

      Robert Fisk rightly writes [reviewing the book]:
      When a proposal that Jews were to be released from Nazi captivity – 10,000 children via Romania to Palestine in 1942 – in return for the Allied release of German civilians, Adolf Eichmann noted that Haj Amin had heard of the plan and protested to Himmler, who, according to the book [by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz], “had then reversed his decision and sent them (the children) back to almost certain death”. The authors repeat the story that Haj Amin had visited Auschwitz extermination camp, drawing upon a sinister document recording the Palestinian Grand Mufti’s 1943 visit to Himmler at the Ukrainian village of Zhitomir (near Kiev), which is geographically close to the Polish town of Oswiencim (Auschwitz). Rubin and Schwanitz say that it is “POSSIBLE” Haj Amin visited the death camp on his way to Zhitomir, and that Treblinka and Majdanek camps were “also conveniently located for a possible visit along the route”.
      McKeekin quoted Hitler as telling Haj Amin that he would annihilate “the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands”, a sentiment which the Palestinian heard “with an air of gratification”. The source, again, is Grobba. And the problem is obvious. If we trust this account, do we therefore trust the Nazi version of history? [...] how come the Nazis were scrupulously honest in recording Haj Amin’s actions and words?

      Idith Zertal: "Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood" and what she describes as: nazification of the Arabs... As she writes: mufti plays a "starring role" in the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (edited under the auspices of Yad Vashem by Yisrael Gutman): The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Göring, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann -- of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry on Hitler.
      The need to displace the charge of collaboration from Zionists to Palestinians grew.
      Shortly after Israeli agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann and spirited him to his show trial in Israel, the once prominent journalist Quentin Reynolds was hired by the Israelis to do a hatchet job on Eichmann. Based on material supplied by the Zionists, Reynolds's Minister of Death claimed that the mufti had been a close confidante of Eichmann, and had displayed an avid interest in the extermination machinery. Reynolds quoted the mufti as telling friends "the Palestine problem will not be solved in a diplomatic conference but by other means -- simple and radical like the gas chambers," and reported that "[h]is green turban was seen many times in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek." Yet the author offered no sources for any of these claims, which were published by Harold Guinzburg's respected Viking Press in 1960.-IHR 2001 vol.20 no. 4.

      In poor written book: "Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam", the authors claim that the relationship between Eichmann and Husseini "is well documented and indisputable." (p51).
      The fact is, Husseini claimed that he did not know Eichmann. Eichmann claimed that they met once at a dinner. The degree of al Husseini's involvement and the depth of his knowledge is largely a matter of speculation. The only source sited for a relationship between Eichmann and Husseini is the testimony of of a single German Nazi, Dieter Wisliceny. The entire premise of the book seems to pivot on the legitimacy of that one source.
      Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, 'The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.

      EVEN Bernard Lewis called Wisliceny's testimony into doubt: 'There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny's statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside.

      OTHER VOICES AGAINST BIBI AND BARRY RUBIN + W. SCHWANITZ
      "I spent my life studying these things,' said Saul Friedländer, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945. ''I don't believe the prime minister's disgusting statement deserves a serious answer… it simply shows who he is: somebody ready to falsify our most tragic history, for political propaganda purposes."
      Deborah Lipstadt, the Dorot professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Emory University, said Netanyahu's account is "just not a factually accurate statement."
      "If the prime minister wants to learn more about this, there's no dearth of books he could read." She suggested he check out Friedländer's book – which lays out how the Nazis planned and developed the final solution beginning in 1941. The mufti does not appear anywhere in the text.
      It's true that between 1941 and 1946 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — a religious figure appointed by the British in Mandatory Palestine — lived in Berlin. He met Hitler in 1941, and the minutes of that meeting have been examined by historians.
      "It's pretty simple, we have a transcript,' said Philip Mattar, the author of the first published biography of al-Husayni, The Mufti of Jerusalem. "There's no mention of exterminating the Jews."
      The mufti was known for making anti-Jewish statements, and lobbying the Nazis to prevent Jewish migration to mandatory Palestine, even as the Nazis began to funnel millions of European Jews into death camps. In his speech, Netanyahu claimed that the mufti was "sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials." While al-Husayni's name did come up during the trials, he was never "sought" or prosecuted. "The mufti was indeed quite callous," Mattar said. "But it's not like the Nazis needed encouragement to carry out the extermination of Jews. In fact, they regarded Arabs like the Mufti as very close to Jews and Gypsies in their status." Lipstadt agreed. "Look, was the mufti upset that Jews were being killed? Probably not," she said. "But did he suggest doing it? There's no evidence of that." But the mufti faded as a national figure after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, said Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. "He was a totally forgotten figure, a completely new leadership emerged throughout the 1950s," he said. The renewed emphasis on the mufti's links to the Nazis, Khalidi said, is the result of right-wing Israeli historians who are eager link the Palestinian movement with anti-Jewish sentiment. "He did align himself with the Nazis," Khalidi said. "He thought the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Joshua Zimmerman, the chair of Interdisciplinary Holocaust studies at the Yeshiva University in New York, said that Nazi's calculations leading up to the "Final Solution" are well documented by historians, and do not include the Palestinian leader at all. Zimmerman looked through the major academic histories of the Holocaust to find a reference to the mufti. He came up short. "In a few Israeli texts he appears in the footnotes, at the peripheries,' he said. "That's it."

      An interesting article:
      David Motadel How Nazi Germany's leaders tried to recruit Muslims to their war against Jews, Britain, and Bolshevism. Fragments:
      ON JULY 25, 1940, JUST AFTER THE FALL OF FRANCE and at the outset of the Battle of Britain, retired German diplomat Max von Oppenheim sent Berlin’s Foreign Office a seven-page memorandum. It was time, he argued, for a comprehensive strategy to mobilize the Islamic world against the British Empire.

      German officials showed little interest in the Middle East, and even less in the wider Muslim world. Hitler’s plans were focused on eastern Europe. In the non-European world, Berlin acknowledged the imperial interests of Italy and Spain, which Hitler sought as allies. A policy of Muslim mobilization was deemed unnecessary.

      As Germany’s war expanded into Muslim-populated lands, that outlook changed.

      In 1941, with German troops fighting in North Africa and advancing toward the Middle East, policymakers in Berlin began considering the strategic role of Islam more systematically. In November, German diplomat Eberhard von Stohrer wrote a memo asserting that the Muslim world would soon become important to the overall war. After the defeat of France, he wrote, Germany had gained an “outstanding position” and won sympathy “in the eyes of the Muslims” by fighting Britain...

      Nazi Germany made significant attempts to promote an alliance with the ‘Muslim world’ against their alleged common enemies: the British Empire, the Soviet Union, America, and the Jews.

      THE ATTEMPTS TO COURT MUSLIMS AROUND THE WORLD were first and foremost motivated by material interests and strategic concerns, not ideology.

      While race theory could justify excluding Persians and Turks from racial discrimination, the case of the Arabs was more complicated: they were seen by most racial ideologues as “Semites.” Regime officials were well aware that the term “anti-Semite” was problematic, as it targeted groups they did not wish to offend. As early as 1935, Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry therefore instructed the press to avoid the terms “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Semitism,” and to instead use words like “anti-Jewish.”

      TO THE NAZI ELITE, any undesirable racial classification of Muslim populations was a wholly different question from the desirability of Islam as a faith. In fact, many of them, including Hitler, distinguished between race and religion when speaking about Islam.

      Heinrich Himmler Recounting a meeting between Himmler and Hitler in Berlin in February 1943, Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, a Wehrmacht general, noted that Himmler had expressed his disdain for Christianity, while finding Islam “very admirable". A few months later, Himmler would again “speak about the heroic character of the Mohammedan religion, while expressing his disdain for Christianity, and especially Catholicism,” wrote Horstenau.

      Himmler, who had left the Catholic Church in 1936, bemoaned that Christianity made no promises to soldiers who died in battle, no reward for bravery. Islam, by contrast, was “a religion of people’s soldiers,” a practical faith that provided believers with guidance for everyday life.

      The most intimate insights into Himmler’s attitude toward Islam are given by his doctor, Felix Kersten [...] To be sure, the Kersten memoirs are a problematic historical source. While some of the parts, especially those about his role in the rescue of Jews and other victims of the regime, were manipulated and fabricated by the author, others have proven to be accurate; the passages about Islam match other accounts of Himmler’s views about Muslims, and can be considered credible.
      According to Kersten, Himmler saw Islam as a masculine, soldierly religion...

      Hitler: After the war, Eva Braun’s sister, Ilse, remembered his frequent discussions on the topic, repeatedly comparing Islam with Christianity in order to devalue the latter. In contrast to Islam, which he saw as a strong and practical faith, he described Christianity as a soft, artificial, weak religion of suffering. Islam was a religion of the here and now, Hitler told his entourage, while Christianity was a religion of a kingdom yet to come — one that was deeply unattractive, compared to the paradise promised by Islam. For Hitler, religion was a means of supporting human life on earth practically and not an end in itself.

      This recruitment campaign was not the result of long-term strategy, but a consequence of the shift toward short-term planning after the failure of the Barbarossa plan. Most of the recruits were driven by material interests. For many of the Muslim volunteers from the Soviet Union who were recruited in prisoner of war camps, a significant incentive was the prospect of pay and better provisions — fighting for the Germans was an attractive prospect compared to the appalling conditions of the camps. Others, most notably Muslim recruits from the civilian population in the Balkans and the Crimea, hoped to protect their families and villages from partisans. Some were driven into the German ranks by ideology, nationalism, religious hatred, and anti-Bolshevism. Under the banner of the swastika, the volunteers believed that they would be supporting the fight against Bolshevism or British imperialism and for the liberation of their countries from foreign rule.

      ...in the words of one internal SS report, the “entire Mohammedan world” that the Third Reich was ready to confront the “common enemies of National Socialism and Islam.” This misconception — this notion that Islam was a monolith that need only be activated — dominated the views of the Nazi leadership.

      Hitler lamented that the Third Reich’s efforts to mobilize the Muslim world had not been strong enough [...]Instead, Germany had too long respected Italian interests in the Muslim world, which had hindered, as Hitler put it, a “splendid policy with regard to Islam.” “For the Italians in these parts of the world are more bitterly hated, of course, than either the British or the French.” The German-Italian alliance had “created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw us as accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors,” he bemoaned.

      his book: David Motadel, Islam and Nazi Germany's War

    • Hello every1 :)
      ...and what's with:"no settlements when in 1929 Palestinian Arabs murdered Jews in Hebron and when Al-huseini visited Hitler and ask him to burn the Jews"- say what? There where jewish settlements and there is no proof mufti said that. About jewish/zionist actions even during Ottoman times you can read works by dr Yuval Ben-Bassat- for a good start.

      ah... yes... the Zionist "favourite" 1929 year. I see you need more facts then propaganda, let me help you:
      Chaim Gerber in Remembering and Imagining Palestine:
      On August 15, 1929, a large group of young right-wing Jews, belonging to the Revisionist Party, organized a noisy political demonstration at the Wailing Wall [...] where since the Middle Ages Jews prayed to God to redeem His people [well not so much: S. Ricca, Heritage, Nationalism and the Shifting Symbolism of the Wailing Wall, “The Jerusalem Quarterly”, issue 24, 2005]. Such a demonstration was a defiant and self-conscious violation of the status quo of the site, which, apart from being sacred to Muslims as well, was part of a Muslim religious endowment, and as such was unequivocally Muslim property. This was the climax of a tense year in the relations between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, a tension that revolved entirely around the Wall. It began on August 23, 1928. On the day before the Jewish Day of Atonement it was discovered that the Jewish beadle (Shamash) of the Wall had brought in a screen to separate men from women worshippers, clearly contravening the status quo concerning traditional Jewish rights of worship at the site. There was nothing in the political atmosphere in Palestine before that event that could be claimed as an early warning sign of a secret intention on the part of Hajj Amin to foment nationalist violence in the country. The British District Officer immediately gave an order to have the screen removed. As the worshippers opposed the order with force, the British police used some violence to enforce it. The incident, probably mainly because of the police reaction, aroused a wave of bitter criticism through- out the Jewish world and drew into the fray such personages as the Zionist “poet laureate,” H.N. Bialik, mourning the miserable condition of the Jewish people in Palestine, unable to possess as much as its most iconic symbol. Loud voices even called for exerting violence in order to achieve complete Jewish control of the Wall. No voice was heard criticizing or lamenting the hasty action of the beadle, or suggesting it may have been a premeditated provocation by someone. This aggressiveness spurred into action the Palestinian Arabs, themselves unquestionably acutely sensitive to what they saw as the larger picture, the Jewish dream of rebuilding the Solomonic Temple, the Wall being just the first step. Heading this activity was Hajj Amin al-Husayni, who, as president of the Supreme Muslim Council, was responsible for all religious endowments in Palestine. So far he had done nothing to foment the feelings of the Palestinian Arabs. The reactions of the Jewish community to the Wall were enough to do this. The Mufti immediately started a campaign of defence of the Buraq. The campaign included a regional Islamic congress, where strongly worded decisions endorsed the sacredness of the Buraq for all Muslims, and warned of the serious repercussions that Jewish intentions in the Haram area would have all over the world. The Mufti and the Palestinians in general also bombarded the British Governments with petitions setting out their own side of the argument. The Palestinian position was presented in a memorandum by Hajj Amin in October 1928. He mentions the fact that the whole area had been a religious endowment since the Middle Ages, and that Jews were allowed to pray next to it as a favour granted by the neighboring Muslims. Hence no appurtenances had been allowed there since medieval times, a stand confirmed by the Ottoman authorities whenever the Jews challenged the status quo.
      Another memorandum stating the Muslim position was presented to the High Commissioner some days later by the Supreme Muslim Council, basically repeating Amin’s document but going beyond it by articulating the real crux of the conflict: the Muslim fear that the Wall was only the first step in Jewish aspirations, and that in truth they were after the Haram area itself. At the same time, a large number of petitions were sent from groups and individuals all over the country, making the same point in strong language.
      A more objective weighing of the evidence shows that the case for the Mufti’s complicity in actually inciting people to engage in extreme violence is rather weak.
      Philip Mattar’s rendering of the chronology of events seems more plausible. According to this version, the Mufti had no grand plan to revive the national movement by igniting a conflagration around the Buraq. His protest against Jewish designs on the Wall was motivated by the intensive, worldwide Jewish campaign set in motion after the 1928 screen incident, a campaign intended to obtain the Wall for the Jews. Given Jewish influence in Great Britain, this outcome seemed quite likely.
      The Mufti’s role in the events was minor, and he deserves neither vilification nor glorification. All the extant evidence shows that he promised the British officials that he would do his utmost to pacify the crowd gathering in the Haram area on the 23rd, and that he did just that, stopping groups going in the direction of the Damascus gate and trying to talk to various groups to calm them. That his was the organizing hand behind the massacres in Hebron and Safad has never been substantiated.
      The Mufti himself certainly did not admit guilt. In a letter to the Times he declared that the urge of the Palestinians in the riots was a “spontaneous and uncontrollable protest,” not against Jews in general or Jews in Palestine, but against “unjust Zionist aggression.” He denies that the outbreak was instigated by the Arab political institutions, or that “Arab effendis” stirred up the violence for political purposes. On the contrary, the tension leading to the outbreak is the fault of the Zionists, who in 1928 had tried to turn the old status quo on its head by making the Wall into a sort of open synagogue (where the separation between men and women is the traditional standard). If this were not enough, he goes on, the intransigent and aggressive speeches made during the 1928 Zionist Congress on the Jewish right to own the Wall (totally disregarding the traditional status quo) inflamed Palestinian sensitivities and brought them to boiling point. However, despite the tension gripping the people, Amin insists that the leaders and he himself made every effort to calm their offended emotions. All the evidence indicates that the Mufti was treading on shaky ground, and that his interest in large-scale violence at this time was not overriding: he was after all a government employee, and certainly interested in keeping his posts, above all because he probably expected the British to come to their senses and discard the Jewish National Home idea and policy, in which case he would be a leading candidate to run the politics of an independent Palestine.

      The affair, then, started on August 15, 1929, with a Betar demonstration at the Wall. The British authorities got word of what was going to happen a day before, as the demonstration was being prepared in the Lemel school in West Jerusalem. High officials went to the school in person and warned the Betar leaders present that the demonstration would be illegal if it were to involve military-style marching, hoisting of flags, chanting of political slogans and the like. Strong assurances were given by Betar leaders. Next day, the interdicted procedures were performed, to the letter. A wild demonstration of Jewish youths took place, with extreme anti-Government and anti-Arab speeches, military marching and so on. Some curses against the Islamic religion were reported. On the 16th a Muslim counter demonstration was held, which went out of control, with some religious scrolls being torn and a Jew beaten up.
      Some excerpts from the report of the British Commission of Inquiry are relevant and important here. The report says, for example: “During and after the midday prayer in the Haram area, speeches were made by the Sheikhs of the Mosque of Aqsa and by the Mufti of Jerusalem.” Arab policemen were sent by the authorities to summarize these speeches. The conclusion drawn was: “Their evidence is to the effect that the speeches made were of a pacifying character but that some of the audience ascended the platform and called to the crowd not to take notice of what the speakers said because they were unfaithful to the Moslem cause.” The report further notes that next day, August 24, the MUFTI issued a communique in which HE CLEARLY CALLED FOR QUIET.
      The conclusion of the Commission regarding the complicity of the Mufti was that, in playing the part he took in the organization of the Burak campaign, he wished both to annoy the Jews, and also to mobilize Arab opinion on the issue of the Wailing Wall, but that he had no intention to utilize that campaign as the means of incitement to disorder.
      The Commission further dealt with Jewish accusations that the Mufti sent emissaries to the villages to foment violence. NO EVIDENCE of this was found and there are two reasons that make the allegation unlikely: FIRST, in three of the worst areas of violence (Hebron, Jaffa, and Haifa) the Mufti’s influence was at its weakest. SECOND, the Commission laid some emphasis on the witness from Beer Sheba who said he had received no directive from the Mufti and had heard of no such directive, and that had he received an order to come to Jerusalem, he would certainly have acted upon it. The Commission further praised the Mufti, stating that at least during the crucial days of August 23 and immediately thereafter the Mufti “exerted his influence in the direction of promoting peace and restoring order. On this point there was unanimity of opinion among the many official witnesses with whom during the course of our inquiry the question of the Mufti’s conduct was raised.” In general, the Commission RULED OUT PREMEDITATION. It was found unlikely, since the riots broke out at different times in different places, and there was no attempt to block roads to prevent police reinforcement, or to cut telephone wires to obstruct government directives and messages.
      ...All this leads to the conclusion that the riots were spontaneous and the outcome of popular nationalism. That they were carried out for the avowed purpose of defending a holy site... in Hebron, where 69 Jews were killed by the crowd, an opposite phenomenon was also manifested. Not all the people of Hebron proceeded to massacre Jews. On the authority of a Jewish investigating body we know that out of 700 Jews in the city, a verified number of 450, probably more, were SHELTERED BY THE ARAB population in their own houses. In other words, the truth is that MANY MORE ARABS IN HEBRON CAME OUT ON THE SIDE OF PEACE AND HUMANITY THAT ON THE SIDE OF VIOLENCE. If anybody personally called for death to Jews, whether this was the Mufti or someone else, the fact is that most people in Hebron ignored such a call and even risked their own lives in defying it.

      READ: Hillel Cohen’s book "1929: Year Zero of the Jewish-Arab Conflict" (Keter, 2013)
      About the book Ran Greenstein writes:
      Cohen demonstrates in the book, this is the impact not so much of the real, historical, events of 1929, but the way in which they have been reconstructed and represented in subsequent political and cultural discourses.
      In the process he presents information not known before or not sufficiently highlighted. That the Arab attackers felt provoked by Jewish moves to change the prevailing arrangements in the Western Wall prayer space, that rumors [me: but there are sources that confirm the killings of Arabs by the zionists, more about it below...] of atrocities committed by Jews against Arabs fueled the wrath of Arab rioters, that Jewish attacks on Arab pedestrians in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv preceded or coincided with the Arab attacks, that Jews also murdered Palestinians in the course of the events, though not on a large scale, that many Palestinian residents helped their Jewish neighbors by standing up to the attackers and preventing them from harming Jews, that no solid evidence exists that the Palestinian leadership – especially Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the grand villain of Zionist historiography – incited the rioters, let alone that they operated on its instructions, that the British forces did not facilitate the attacks and usually tried to stop them but were not always quick enough, and so on. Most of the evidence Cohen presents is not new but he digs up evidence that remained obscured and organizes it into a coherent narrative that gives an overview of developments in different parts of the country, and makes sense of the story.

      So H. Cohen and Chaim Gerber support each other in their statements.

      Also: Beyond the general picture he tries to understand the specific features of each case, particularly that of Hebron. The tendency of younger Jews in that community to identify with the Zionist movement was a factor that contributed to it being targeted. Evidence about clashes between Jewish newcomers – American religious students – and local residents, and tensions related to the role of a Jewish-owned bank in the lives of indebted peasants in the region, provides a context for the particularly vicious nature of the violence in that town, though of course it cannot possibly justify any of it.- more here: http://972mag.com/book-review-the-year-palestine-became-a-zero-sum-game-1929/85448/ You can read the book too! It took me some time to read it since it is in hebrew and my friend translated it for me one part at a time... ;p

      Read about slobdoka yeshiva, which applied into their “religious attitude” the policy of excluding Palestinians and Sephardi alike. At that point what for centuries has been a quite good cooperation between Jews and Arab-Pals in Hebron turned into a nationalist competition... Yeshiva has been connected already in 1907 with the racist policy, when they supported the VIII zionist congress that sent Arthur Ruppin with the aim to create “a Jewish milieu and of a closed Jewish economy, in which producers, consumers and middlemen shall all be Jewish” [The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1990-1991- this quote is well known, you can search it in other sources if you want]. The same approach was implemented by avodah ivrit.

      Late Rabbi Baruch Kaplan [critic of the zionist ideology as was rabbi Sonnenfeld...): At that time in 1929, the Zionists had a slogan arguing that the Western Wall in Jerusalem was a Jewish “national symbol.” Of course, the Arabs disagreed with this idea, considering that they had control of the location for over 1,100 years. However, the Zionist mobs were yelling that “The Wall is ours!” It’s hard to understand why they felt that way considering they have no connection to the Jewish holy places whatsoever. An argument erupted in the Jewish newspapers about establishing a permanent prayer area for Jews at the Wall. This provoked the Arabs, and the rabbi of Jerusalem at the time, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld begged them to stop and to be appreciative to the Arabs for allowing Jews to pray at the Wall for so many centuries undisturbed. His appeal was presented in English translation and in Arabic in the leading Arab newspaper as well as in Loshon Kodesh in the Agudah weekly, Kol Yisroel on November 22, 1929.

      However, the Zionists wanted a permanent setup under their control. The Zionists refused to heed the calls of Rabbi Zonnenfeld, and they called a large meeting of Jews in Jerusalem – supposedly some 10,000 people showed up. One of the speakers was their “chief Rabbi” (Avraham Isaac Kook), who proclaimed, “Hear O Israel, the Wall is our Wall, the Wall is One” (which is a ridiculous pun on the blessing, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our G-d, the Lord is One”). This began the conflict at the time between the Zionists and the Arabs.
      Afterwards, we were studying at the yeshiva in Hebron, and saw a bunch of boys in short pants carrying weapons on bicycles and motorcycles, running around the streets of Hebron. We were very worried about this. What were they up to? In brief, our rabbi, the supervisor of our religious academy, Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein, called them for a meeting, but they refused. He was forced to go over to them, and asked them what they were up to. He accused them of wanting to provoke the Arabs. They responded that they were coming to protect us!! We cried out, “Woe is us! G-d have mercy!” They didn’t want to leave town until it was too late!

      ALSO: Segev (2000) reports about a meeting between mukhtars and Cafferata (Raymond Cafferata, the Assistant District Superintendent of the Palestine Police Force. Etzel, Lehi and Hagana (which gave the green light, tried to kill him, even in England) before the massacre: They had heard that Jews were slaughtering Arabs in Jerusalem; apparently the mufti was demanding they take action and threatened to fine them if they refused. Cafferata promised that everything was now peaceful and instructed them to go home and stay there. Indeed Jerusalem had calmed down by that time. The day's death amounted to eight Jews and five Arabs. Fifteen Jews and nine Arabs had been injured. Indeed Palestinians in Hebron heard about the murder of the Sheikh Oun family of Jerusalem.
      Investigating Commission stated that 'The Hebron disturbances started only when the report on the murdering of an isolated Arab family in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem reached the town.' (Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August 1929, H.M. Stationery Office, 1930 p.1039). The secondary source reporting this is Susan Silsby Boyle,Betrayal Of Palestine: The Story Of George Antonius, Westview Press, 2001 p.156.

      Combining all the info, the zionist propaganda does not hold water about blood thirsty Arabs that just wanted to kills Jews... [if it was true, why Palestinians would save that many Jews in Hebron?]

      Again 1929 is used only for propaganda against Palestinians... no facts, no context ... no mention of zionist racial policies towards them and no mention about killings of Pals at that time... bad for PR...

  • 'This land is ours. All of it is ours': Meet the Netanyahu cabinet members focused on fighting BDS & annexing the West Bank
    • @Yonah
      Those are the titles of his book. And you must read them as a whole. You wrote: In what way did the Arabs not reject the partition plan? And he writes about "Myth Two: Arabs Rejected the Partition AND Launched War". Read the chapter(s)... It would be a shame if I picked only few of his info. Talking about accuracy....

    • First of all it is not as if everything was calm and that it started on 29 November, so it is meaningless to try to pinpoint 1 event from that day to blame all what happened later on several ppl!!
      Remember what Simha Flapan wrote in "The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities", especially: "Myth One: Zionists Accepted the UN Partition and Planned for Peace"; "Myth Two: Arabs Rejected the Partition and Launched War"; "Myth Four: All the Arab States United to Expel the Jews from Palestine"; "Myth Seven: Israel has Always Sought Peace, but No Arab Leader Has Responded".

      More in: Nur Masalha, "1948 and After" Revisited- comment on Benny Morris' book.
      For example I. Pappe, Walid Khalidi, Nur Masalha T. Segev, Shlaim, and many others wrote so much about the tranfer idea, and other Zionist politics towards Arab Palestinians long before Nakba!
      Yosef Weitz and the Transfer Committees, 1948-1949, by B. Morris 1986
      Yosef Nahmani and the Arab Question in 1948 [it shows that Nahmani advocated tranfer as in 1930s]
      Official Jewish Agency's "Transfer Committees" and "Transfer" schemes from 1937 onwards.
      Erskine Childers: The Other Exodus
      And works about it for example by Nur Masalha, W. Khalidi and Pappe. It is useless to play who did what in 1 day, since things were going downhill long long before even the idea of partition came to be considered very seriously.
      Later in the '40s:
      As early as March 1946 Haganah had told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "If you accept the Zionist solution, but are unable or unwilling to enforce it, please do not interfere, and we ourselves will secure its implementation".[Head of Command, Jewish Resistance Movement, to Joint Chairman Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry" 25 May 1946, p. 11- A stenciled memorandum distributed by The Jewish Agency Delegation during the committee's session.[in:Plan Dalet Revisited", by Walid Khalidi]

      If you want to show who did what first [I can still play...] the shooting on 30 of November was the result of this:
      November 12, 1947
      near Raanana
      In the process of raiding a LEHI terrorist arsenal in a farmhouse, British troops kill three Jewish girls and two boys. A wave of retaliatory killings begins immediately.

      November 13, 1947
      Jerusalem
      Jewish terrorists attack the Ritz Cafe, a favorite with the Brits, throwing hand grenades and firing a machine gun into it.

      November 14, 1947
      Jerusalem; Tel Aviv
      Jewish terrorists kill two British policemen in Jerusalem and two soldiers in Tel Aviv. The body count for this day and the previous two is now 53: 10 Britons killed, 33 wounded; five Jews killed, five more wounded.

      November 20, 1947
      near Raanana
      LEHI executes four Arabs, continuing its retaliations for the November 12 tragedy.

      November 22, 1947
      Haifa
      Another Arab murdered by LEHI/the Stern gang following their execution of four Arabs near Raanana November 20 in retaliation for the British shooting of five Stern gang members on November 12. Arabs retaliated against this killing at Raanana by wounding five Jews on a bus near Tel Aviv on November 30.
      Of course we can mention previous Zionist attacks on British soldiers and administration in general, on Palestinians Arabs and even Jews...
      Try:
      A Summary of Zionist Terrorism in the Near East — 1944-1948
      Prepared for Dr. Ralph J. Bunche, UN Mediator for Palestine

      Foreward: In view of the tragic assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte by identified Jewish terrorists on September 17 of this year, the following report has been prepared for the use of Dr. Bunche, Count Bernadotte’s immediate replacement.
      The report is a compilation of all identified terrorist attacks on British, American and Arab individuals and entities from the assassination of the British Resident Minister in the Middle East on November 6, 1944 by members of the terrorist Jewish Stern gang to the assassination of Count Bernadotte on September 17, 1948 by members of this same gang of fanatics.
      This information is compiled from reports of the US Department of State, the British Foreign Office and various American and British press services.
      New York, October 1, 1948

      In that report:
      It becomes clearly evident that the partition is not going as planned and that although the Jews are pleased, the Arabs are not. There appears to be no way to control the Jews or their determination to drive all of the Arabs out of Jerusalem by force if necessary. The Arabs, initially living in peace with the Jewish minority, have been increasingly victimized by the Jews who, now that the British are leaving, are turning their savage behavior against them.

      The Jews have redoubled their efforts to build a military force and arm them. They claim that this force is to protect the Jewish population against attacks from the Arab countries as well as the Arab population of Jerusalem but an even stronger argument can be made that the Zionists are determined to drive out the Arab population by armed force. The initial Arab response to Jewish harassment over the past year has been very slow in coming but it seems to be quite inevitable and a terrible civil war is foreseen.

      The United States Department of State announced on December 5, 1947 that they were placing an embargo on all American arms shipments to the Middle East. It appears that the Soviets have been sending weapons, mostly captured German pieces, to assist the Zionists and accompanying these clandestine arms shipments the Soviets have also sent a very sizable contingent of instructors and advisors to Palestine in months past.
      http://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Terrorism-Middle-East-1944-ebook/dp/B00VPUFVLM

      There are many other lists available
      One list starts with:
      1947
      Jan. 12—Four killed by Irgun terrorist bombing of British headquarters.
      Jan. 13—Arab kidnapped and castrated by Jewish terrorists.
      March 1—Sixteen Britons killed by Jewish terrorists/Britain invokes martial law
      March 10—Jewish informer killed by Jewish terrorists.
      March 11—Two British soldiers killed by Jewish terrorists.
      April 8—British constable killed by Jewish terrorists.
      April 8—Jewish boy killed by British troops.
      April 8—Jew beaten to death by Arabs.
      April 22—Eight killed in Jewish terrorist bombing of the Cairo-Haifa train.
      April 25—Five killed in Jewish terrorist bombing of British camp.
      April 26—British police official killed by Jewish terrorist.
      May 8—Three Jewish shops in Tel Aviv whose owners refused to contribute to Jewish terrorist groups burned down by Jewish terrorists.

      through:

      Aug. 15—Twelve Palestinians killed in raid by Haganah troops.
      Aug. 18—Shops of five Jews in Tel Aviv destroyed by Jewish terrorists.
      Aug. 23—Five Arabs of one family—two men, a woman and two children—killed by Jewish terrorists.
      Dec. 13—35 Palestinian civilians killed in Jewish terrorist attacks.

      ending with:
      Dec. 29—14 Arabs killed by Irgun bomb in Jerusalem.
      Dec. 29—Irgun flogs British major and three sergeants.
      Dec. 30—41 Jews, 6 Arabs killed in riot sparked by Stern Gang.
      Dec. 31—Irgun claims to have killed 374 Arabs and British during year.

      Link:
      http://www.wrmea.org/2006-may-june/hamas-a-pale-image-of-the-jewish-irgun-and-lehi-gangs.html
      or : http://www.britishforcesinpalestine.org

      In sum: Zionists attacked:British, Pal.Arabs and Jews.

  • UN: In 2014, Israel demolished 1,177 Palestinians’ homes in the West Bank
    • Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross & Keren Michaeli "Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Terrority"
      We argue that the legality of the phenomenon of occupation, as it relates to the function of managing the situation, is to be measured in relation to three fundamental legal principles:
      (a) Sovereignty and title in an occupied territory are not vested in the occupying power. The roots of this principle emanate from the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through actual or threatened use of force. Under contemporary international law, and in view of the principle of self-determination, sovereignty is vested in the population under occupation.
      (b) The occupying power is entrusted with the management of public order and civil life in the territory under control. In view of the principle of
      self-determination, the people under occupation are the beneficiaries of this trst. The dispossession and subjugation of these people violate this trust.
      (c) Occupation is temporary. It may be neither permanent nor indefinite
      These principles, as we will show, interrelate: the substantive constraints on the managerial discretion of the occupant elucidated in principles "(a)" and "(b)" generate the conclusion in "(c)" that occupation must necessarily be temporary. Violating the temporal constraints expressed in principle "(c)" cannot but violate principles "(a)" and "(b)," thereby corrupting the normative regime of occupation in the sense that an occupation that cannot be regarded as temporary defies both the principle of trust and of self-determination. The violation of any one of these principles, therefore, unlike the violation of a specific norm that reflects them,renders an occupation illegal per se.
      This is the nature of the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). Section II.A: Intrinsic Dimensions of the Israeli Occupation of the OPT, substantiates this argument.
      We further argue that the legality of occupation, in its function to create an orderly space that is nevertheless distinct from the normal political order of sovereign equality between states, is to be measured by its exceptionality: once the boundaries between the normal order (i.e., sovereign equality between states) and the exception (i.e., occupation) are blurred, an occupation becomes illegal.
      The nexus between the two functions is clear: an occupation that is illegal from the perspective of managing an otherwise chaotic situation is also illegal in that it obfuscates the distinction between the rule and its exception. Yet, the distinction between these two forms of illegality is important; the former is grounded in the intrinsic principles of the law of occupation, while the latter is extrinsic to this law and delineates its limits. The Israeli occupation of the OPT is illegal both intrinsically and extrinsically. Section II.B: Extrinsic Dimensions of the Israeli Occupation of the OPT, substantiates this argument.

      oh you write: "Occupation is by definition a legal condition". ICJ has determined the illegality of South Africa's occupation of South West Africa (Namibia). OCCUPATION CAN BE ILLEGAL. That is also the reason why there were discussions about the legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.....

      The work of Orna Ben-Naftali you can read here:
      http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Is-Pal/Second-Syllabus/Ben-Naftali,%20Gross%20and%20Michaeli,%20Illegal%20Occupation.pdf

  • Finkelstein on Joan Peters's legacy (and Dershowitz's legal troubles)
    • So... that was a poor research:)You do know the premise of those photos, journals from that period right? Their basic themes and goals? You see the differences between various Western photos and local ones?(depends what material did you have). The same is with journals.... Additionally you have to know how to study those materials, and place them in historical context, their tasks and so on. It also depends what material did you have, etc...It is hard to use them without other materials like statistics, censuses, anthropological and historical studies... you can't just base on photos and journals solely to make an argument for sth... no scholar does that!
      Image of the "Holy Land" [produced by Western photographers, travellers, etc.] ignored the real lives of the residents, at most, they were the embodiment of biblical characters, which can be seen live in modern times. Often deliberately ppl took pictures or wrote only about landscapes or a few ppl who embodied biblical figures.

      Professional research on the subject:
      1.K. Whitelam, The Land and the Book: Biblical Studies and Imaginative Geographies of Palestine, “Postscripts: The Journal of Sacred Texts and Contemporary Worlds” 2008, vol. 4 no. 1
      http://www.academia.edu/1129349/The_Land_and_the_Book_Biblical_Studies_and_Imaginative_Geographies_of_Palestine
      2.S.S. Rogers, Inventing the Holy Land American Protestant Pilgrimage to Palestine, 1865–1941, Lexington Books,New York 2011
      3.A. Merli, A New Art in an Ancient Land: Palestine through the lens of early European photographers, "The Jerusalem Quarterly", issue 50, 2012
      http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/PDF/issues-pdf/50issue.pdf
      4.L. Wheatley-Irving, Holy Land Photographs and Their Worlds Francis Bedford and the ‘Tour in the East’, "The Jerusalem Quarterly", issue 31, 2007
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/jq/fulltext/77885
      5.N. Hasson, The finest photographs of early 20th century Palestine, shuttered in controversy, "Haaretz"
      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-finest-photographs-of-early-20th-century-palestine-shuttered-in-controversy-1.411086
      6.B. Kline, Hey, there were people here!, "The Jerusalem Post" [online]
      http://www.jpost.com/Arts-and-Culture/Entertainment/Hey-there-were-people-here
      7.B. al-Hajj, Khalil Raad- Jerusalem Photographer, "The Jerusalem Quarterly", issue 11-12, 2001
      http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/images/ArticlesPdf/11_khalil%20raad.pdf
      8.S. Tamari, The War Photograhy of Khalil Raad: ottoman Modernity and the Biblical Gaze, "The Jerusalem Quarterly" issue 52, 2013
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/JQ-52-Tamari-The_War_Photography_of_Khalil_Raad_1.pdf
      9.I. Nassar, Early Local Photography in Palestine: The Legacy of Karimeh Abbud, "The Jerusalem Quarterly", issue 46, 2011
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/46-Early_local_photographer_2.pdf
      10.N. Gertz, G. Khleifi, Palestinian Cinema
      And BTW about earlier posts- you clearly aren't a linguist since you didn't even understood the texts written by linguists themselves- I only quoted them- (those are basic books actually...) heh you didn't read them properly not to mention understand (you mixed terms!!!)... but other ppl might... so it is good those quotes are mentioned here....sb might go and read the whole books:)

      Some basic info for you:
      1.Hebrew and Zionism: A Discourse Analytic Cultural Study, by Ron Kuzar(again)
      2.Babel in Zion: Jews, Nationalism, and Language Diversity in Palestine, 1920-1948, by Liora R. Halperin
      3.Defining Neighbors: Religion, Race, and the Early Zionist-Arab Encounter, by Jonathan Marc Gribetz

      Your problem is that you use religious chronology [ideas, etc] (like Arabs and Arabic came to that region only in VII with Islam, same thing with Jews-Hebrew-Judaism... but, researchers around the world show different historic processes, etc.) and as you write you think there are "natural identities"... that is something NO SCHOLAR could ever write since that is not true whatsoever (you are not a scholar, are you?) I gave you even basic titles about identity, etc... that is why you couldn't even understood the texts about languages and their history...

      oh, for 1929 you really need to read: Hillel Cohen’s book, 1929: Year Zero of the Jewish-Arab Conflict (Keter, 2013) [or British archives from that time...]- he deals with basic myths about it

      About late Ottoman Palestine you NEED to read:
      1.J. Bussow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872-1908, Brill, Leiden 2011
      2.Jerusalem: From the Ottomans to the British, by Roberto Mazza
      3.B. Abu-Manneh, The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century, [in:] The Israel/Palestine Question,ed. I. Pappe, Routledge, London 4.B. Doumani, Rediscovering Palestine. Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900, University of California Press, Berkeley
      5.A. Manna, Ottoman Period, Late, [w:] Encyclopedia of the Palestinians...
      6.M. Campos, Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2011
      7.Y. Ben-Bassat, E. Ginios, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule, I.B. Tauris, London 2011
      8.S. Tamari, Year of the Locust. A Soldier's Diary and the Erasure of Palestine's Ottoman Past, University of California Press, Berkely 2011
      9.S. Tamari, Mountain Against the Sea
      10.L Fishman, The 1911 Haram Al-Sharif Incident: Palestinian Notables Versus The Ottoman Administration, "Journal of Palestine Studies", vol. XXXIV no.3, 2005
      http://www.academia.edu/8458321/The_1911_Haram_al-Sharif_Incident_Palestinian_Notables_Versus_the_Ottoman_Administration
      11.Ben-Bassat, Yuval. “Rural Reactions to Zionist Activity in Palestine before and after the Young-Turk Revolution of 1908 as Reflected in Petitions to Istanbul
      http://www.academia.edu/4980471/Ben-Bassat_Yuval._Rural_Reactions_to_Zionist_Activity_in_Palestine_before_and_after_the_Young-Turk_Revolution_of_1908_as_Reflected_in_Petitions_to_Istanbul_Middle_Eastern_Studies_49_3_2013_pp._349-363
      12.Ben-Bassat, Yuval. "Mass Petitions as a Way to Evaluate ‘Public Opinion’ in the Late Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire? The Case of Internal Strife among Gaza's Elite," Turkish Historical Review, 4 (2013)
      http://www.academia.edu/5272616/Ben-Bassat_Yuval._Mass_Petitions_as_a_Way_to_Evaluate_Public_Opinion_in_the_Late_Nineteenth-Century_Ottoman_Empire_The_Case_of_Internal_Strife_among_Gazas_Elite_Turkish_Historical_Review_4_2013_pp._135-152
      13.Ben-Bassat, Yuval- Petitioning the Sultan: Protests and Justice in Late Ottoman Palestine
      Yuval Ben-Bassat examines the petitions, including many previously unpublished ones, sent during the last decades of the Empire to the Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II. The petitions enable Ben-Bassat to explore Palestine's history in this formative period from a unique perspective, providing first-hand accounts of the dilemmas, struggles, acts, concerns, schisms and transformations Palestinian society experienced. Petitioning the Sultan will be of great interest to a broad audience of specialists studying the history of the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire, and Palestine's late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century world.

  • The ‘hasbara’ tweeps who brought down Jim Clancy, and their ties to Israel and the Israel lobby
    • @Walid +1 :) I am with you on that!

    • @DaBakr
      About Golan:
      Golan Heights after 1967 war became almost empty [population of 120.000 to 130.000 that lived on a plateau of 70 km became a population of about 17.000 at present].
      After 1967 Israel absorbed Golan into its economy and the application of Syrian law was discontinued. Israeli authorities explained it by the fact that all local judges had "fled" and there were no local law books from which local law could be ascertained. That is quite a poor excuse, since Israel could have let those judges come back and get new local law books, but hey... anything that will slightly pass as an excuse right? [try: Th.S. Kuttner, about International Law of Belligerent Occupation]. Golan Heights law from 1981 reads: "the law, jurisdiction and administration of the state shall apply to the Golan Heights" [Have you even read that law?]. This wording drew some discussion as to whether it constituted annexation of the Golan Heights to Israel. Leon Sheleff has argued that in the absence of express language favoring annexation, the Golan Law should be construed as narrowly as possible: it merely applies Israeli law there, but does not change the status of the region as an occupied territory. The annexation of a territory governed by a belligerently occupying regime is repugnant to international law. United Nation Security Council adopted Resolution 497, which declared that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied SGH is null and void and without international effect". Syria regarded the law as declaration of war and annulled the state of cease fire agreement.
      In the future thus that law will constitute some problem for Israel, since the status of GH still requires a solution that will settle its status [it is still occupied, etc.] and in any future peace agreement with Syria, the Knesset will first need to approve of the agreement with an absolute majority vote and then have the Israeli public also approve of it in a national referendum.

      Yoram Dinstein also points that the GH Law does not employ the word annexation, but some do consider them annexed in consequence of it. Others, [including him] disagree with that approach. But, even if the annexationist interpretation of the Israeli domestic legislation is correct, this would have no impact on the status of the GH pursuant to international law.- in: The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, by Yoram Dinstein or L.Sheleff, Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights Is Not Annexation or V.Coussirat-Coustere "Israel et le Golan: Problemes Juridiques Resultant de la Loi du 14 Decembre 1981.

      Even: Prime Minister Menachem Begin responded to Amnon Rubinstein's criticism by saying: "you use the word 'annexation', I do not use it".

      So the issue is much more complicated than you want to present it.

      Oh, about Israeli threats concerning Syria:
      The Syrian-Israeli friction continued throughout early 1967. Then, in April, Israel said it would cultivate the entire demilitarized zone between the countries, including land that Syria contended was the property of Arab farmers.
      When the Israelis moved a tractor onto the land on April 7, the Syrians fired on them. To retaliate, 70 Israeli fighters flew over Syria and shot down 6 Syrian war planes near Damascus. There was no response from the United Arab Command, an essentially paper military undertaking organized by Nasser at an Arab summit in 1964. Over the next several weeks, Israel threatened Syria. 11 May 1967 gen. Rabis on Israeli radio about attacking Syria. Gen. Aharon Tariv (director of military intelligence] repeated Rabin's threats to Syria to 40 correspondents + taunted Nasser, by claiming that Egypt was weak and that Nassser, "the all-Arab leader" would never intervene. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders did all they could to have their country appear in mortal danger.
      The situation worsened when the Soviet Union told the Egyptians that Israel had massed forces on the Syrian border in preparation for a mid-May attack. The United Nations found no evidence of such preparation, but on May 14 Nasser moved troops into the Sinai. Yet U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that the action was, in Foreign Minister Abba Eban's words, "no immediate military threat," and several years later, in 1972, Gen. Ezer Weizmann admitted that "we did move tanks to the north after the downing of the aircraft."

      More:
      "Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy," Dayan told Tal in 1976. "You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." According to the published notes, Tal began to remonstrate, "But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and ...."Dayan interrupted: "Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

      More: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/folks-talking-palestine#comment-739890 :
      Mr. McNamara said that our intelligence differed on some of the facts Prime Minister Eshkol had relied upon; but, more importantly, our appraisal of the facts was different. We thought the Egyptian deployments were defensive in character and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack.
      It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel.General Rabin, for example, stated: ‘I do not believethat Nasser wanted war….” Quigley moreover makes the case that the various steps undertaken by the Arab States were inspired by the concern for an Israeli attack on Syria thus suggesting that Egypt’s actions were not offensive in nature, but defensive.In this context, it is worth noting that during the debates on the Six Day War several UN Members mentioned Israeli threats to ‘invade’ Syria.

  • Update: On MLK Day, lots of folks are talking Palestine
    • Great comment Walid!:)
      Also awesome comments in here:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/understanding-still-matters

      And:
      The Myth of Annihilation and the Six-Day War, by Joseph L. Ryan
      http://worldview.carnegiecouncil.org/archive/worldview/1973/09/2214.html/_res/id=sa_File1/v16_i009_a009.pdf

      Mr. McNamara said that our intelligence differed on some of the facts Prime Minister Eshkol had relied upon; but, more importantly, our appraisal of the facts was different. We thought the Egyptian deployments were defensive in character and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack.
      http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d69

      'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter: Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice, by Tom Ruys
      It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel.General Rabin, for example, stated: 'I do not believethat Nasser wanted war...."
      Quigley moreover makes the case that the various steps undertaken by the Arab States were inspired by the concern for an Israeli attack on Syria thus suggesting that Egypt's actions were not offensive in nature, but defensive.In this context, it is worth noting that during the debates on the Six Day War several UN Members mentioned Israeli threats to 'invade' Syria.

      The Sword And The Olive: A Critical History Of The Israeli Defense Force, by Martin van Creveld about Israel's forces: spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke one., p. 172.

      The Generous Peace Offer that was Never Offered: The Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 in:
      http://www.academia.edu/2545518/_The_Generous_Peace_Offer_that_was_Never_Offered_The_Israeli_Cabinet_Resolution_of_June_19_1967_Diplomatic_History_vol._37_no._1_January_2013_
      Historically, and to a considerable extent currently, Israel’s official line has been that despite persistent attempts to make peace with its Arab neighbors there was no one to talk to on the other side. In public and academic discourse, the cabinet resolution of June 19, 1967 , which was adopted a bare nine days after the guns of the Six Day War had fallen silent, has frequently been put forward as proof of Israel’s desire for reconciliation:its government,the argument goes,offered Egypt and Syria the territories they had lost in the war in return for contractual peace,but the magnanimous initiative met with an immediate rebuff from the belligerent Arabs. The story of the rejected “generous peace offer” makes a very strong casefor a peace-seeking Israel and for Arab animosity toward the Jewish state. But an investigation into the matter reveals that the “generous peace offer” was never offered, and that the Israeli cabinet passed the June 19 resolution mainly as a diplomatic maneuver.Its principal objective was to win the United States’support against an uncompromising Soviet drive for a United Nations resolution demanding Israel immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the territories occupied in the war. The purpose of this essay is twofold. One is to show that the story of the“generous peace offer” of June 19 , 1967 is unfounded. The second is to examine how the myth of the “generous peace offer” came into being.

      About Tiran... Citizen has a comment:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/israels-reliance-on-us-has-turned-it-into-a-global-pariah#comment-460675
      The question of the Straits of Tiran. Ok. Number one, U Thant had made an offer, he said let’s do what happened in Cuba during the Missile Crisis. Let’s have a moratorium. The moratorium would be, Egypt promises not to fire on foreign vessels that go through the Straits of Tiran, Israel promises it won’t send through Israeli-flagged vessels. Egypt says, fine. Israel says, no.
      Now, another unknown fact. Everybody refers to the blockade in the Straits of Tiran. There was no blockade. I know you’ll be surprised to learn that. It’s a little known fact. The first couple of days the Egyptians searched ships. By the end of the week they stopped searching the ships. The ships were going right through. We know that because the main figure there, he actually just passed away this week, Indar Jit Rikhye, he wrote a book called The Sinai Blunder, and he was in charge of the UN forces there. There was no blockade. He writes it in the book, I even asked, kind of surprised, I called him to check on it a couple of years ago and he laughed. He said there was no blockade.
      Number three. Nasser said, you say you have the rights of passage in the Straits of Tiran, we say you don’t. If you want, go to the World Court. Let the World Court adjudicate it. Nasser said, yes. The Israelis said, no.

      To add to all the above: in Tom Segev 1967 p.241: Moshe Shapira to Rabin: "The Straits were closed until 1956- did it threaten Israel's security? It did not!".

      The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense, by John Quigley
      About the book: http://electronicintifada.net/content/did-israel-develop-doctrine-behind-iraq-invasion/13939

      CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

      Dalia Gavrieli-Nuri: Saying "War", Thinking "Victory"—The Mythmaking Surrounding Israel's 1967 Victory, Israel Studies - Volume 15, Number 1, Spring 2010, pp. 95-114
      “Pre-emptive War:” the Six Day War Revisited Ersun N. Kurtulus:
      The article presents a critical assessment of the widespread conceptualization of the June 1967 War between Israel and its neighboring Arab states as a pre-emp-tive war both in academic and non-academic writing. Tracing the origins of the notion of pre-emptive war to international law, the article identifies three necessary conditions for such a war to be classified as pre-emptive: acute crisis combined with high alert levels; vulnerable offensive weapons; and strategic parity as regards to offensive capabilities. On the basis of a re-interpretation of the evidence produced by previous research, this article argues that the circumstances surrounding the Six Day War did not fulfill some of these necessary conditions.
      This conclusion also is supported by evidence related to the Israeli decision to launch a first strike.
      link to https://kar.kent.ac.uk/1547/1/Kurtulus.pdf

  • Two Palestinians are killed near Gush Etzion settlement bloc in West Bank
  • The legacy of Joan Peters and 'From Time Immemorial'
    • The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality. A Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality under the British Rule, by Mutaz Qafisheh
      Travellers
      In 1925, “1,674 travellers, including 1,251 Jews, were granted permission to remain permanently in Palestine, p. 212
      In 1936, “1,817 persons who originally entered as travellers... subsequently received permission to remain permanently”.
      As a result, the number of travellers who were registered as immigrants from 1924 until 1945 totalled 38,325 persons.

      Immigrants
      Immigrants constituted the bulk of foreigners who entered Palestine under the British rule, most of whom were Jews. From 1920 until 1945, the total number of persons registered as immigrants and, therefore, permanent residents in the country, was estimated at 401,149. Of these, 367,845 (about 91%) were Jews., p.215.
      In 1933, it was estimated that “the number of these unauthorized [Jewish immigrant] settlers had reached a total of 22,400 in the last two years”, p.223
      During the same period [by march 1944], 19,965 illegal immigrants had entered the country., p.215
      A considerable number of foreign Jews (about 261,975 persons) were present in Palestine in 1946. This figure included three categories of Jews: (1) legal residents, (2) illegal immigrants,1126 and (3) refugees. On the other hand, the number of foreign Arabs in Palestine stood at about 16,148 persons. Thus, foreign Arabs in Palestine were a minor group (about 6% of all foreign ppl) when compared with foreign Jews (about 94%) presented in the country., p. 260-261.

      In its first provision, the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 considered all Ottoman subjects who were habitually resident in Palestine on 1 August 1925 as Palestinian citizens. These inhabitants, numbered 729,873 individuals, formed the first-ever Palestinian citizens from the viewpoint of domestic law. Of these Palestinians, 99% were comprised of Arabs (Muslims, Christians and ‘Others’) and 1% consisted of Jews. In regard to Ottomans who were born in Palestine but were residing abroad on 1 August 1925 (estimated at about 40,000 in 1936), the British-run Government of Palestine denied them to return to their homes in Palestine. As a result, these native Palestinians had become stateless; on the one hand, they lost their Ottoman nationality by virtue of the Treaty of Lausanne and, on the other hand, they had not acquired Palestinian nationality according to Palestinian law.
      At the end end of this rule, the total number of persons who acquired Palestinian nationality by naturalization was estimated at 132,616; about 99% of them were Jews., p. 271.

      From 1920 until 1945, the total number of persons registered as immigrants in Palestine was estimated at 401,149. Of these, 367,845 individuals (about 91%) were Jews. Thus, about one-forth of Palestine’s inhabitants, citizens and foreigners at the end of the mandate period were immigrants., p. 272

      Also:
      N.G. Finkelstein, "A Spectacular Fraud: From Time Immemorial", In These Times, September 5-11, 1984.
      Alexander Cockburn, "Beat the Devil", The Nation, September 29, 1984
      Robert Olson, "Review of Books", American Historical Review, April 1985
      Bill Farrell, "Joan Peters and the Perversion of History", Journal of Palestine Studies, Fall 1984
      Madeleine Tress, Arab Studies Quarterly, Fall 1984
      Albert Hourani, "Back to the Roots of Middle East Conflict", The Observer (London), March 5, 1985.
      And many others.

      Edward C. Corrigan on Peters' 3 main demographic thesis: http://www.edcorrigan.ca/articles/joan-peters-from-time-immemorial.-definitive-study-or-transparent-fraud,-by-edward-c.-corrigan.-american-arab-affairs,-fall-1986-pp.-77-91.pdf

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • Hello MHughes :)
      You may find interesting:
      Daniel Boyarin, Semantic Differences; or, "Judaism"/"Christianity" in: The Ways That Never Parted Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by A.H. Becker, A.Y. Reed

      Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987), edited by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs.

      Seth Schwartz emphasizes the variety without embracing the plural terminology: "It is difficult to imagine any serious scholar ever again describing the Judaism of the later Second Temple period as a rigorous, monolithic orthodoxy, as was still common only a generation ago" (Imperialism and Jewish Society, 4-5); or , "In this book I assume that ancient Judaism was complex, capacious, and rather frayed at the edges," although not "multiple" (p. 9).

      "Who was a Jew?: Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian Schism", by Lawrence H. Schiffman. He asks what caused the Jews of the tannaitic period to reject the Christians. His study seeks to understand why Christianity was not simply regarded as one of the sects.

      J. Levinson, There is no Place Like Home: Rabbinic Responses to the Christianization of Palestine in Jews, Christians, and the Roman Empire The Poetics of Power in Late Antiquity, by Natalie B. Dohrmann and Annette Yoshiko Reed. The whole book is quite interesting :)

      They represent different conceptions, methodologies, opinions, etc. A fun read ;]

    • @yonah:
      Israel Admits that the Justification for Waging the 2006 War on Lebanon Was Fabricated
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-admits-that-the-justification-for-waging-the-2006-war-on-lebanon-was-fabricated/31884

      Olmert: Even before Hezbollah war, Israel knew it was hopeless to retrieve abducted IDF soldiers
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/olmert-even-before-hezbollah-war-israel-knew-it-was-hopeless-to-retrieve-abducted-idf-soldiers-1.450701#
      Report: Interim findings of war won't deal with personal failures Olmert has told the Winograd Commission that his decision to respond to the abduction of soldiers with a broad military operation was made as early as March 2006, four months before last summer's Lebanon war broke out.

      Olmert admits blueprint for 2006 war preceded conflict
      http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2007/Mar-09/44699-olmert-admits-blueprint-for-2006-war-preceded-conflict.ashx

      Israeli PM says Lebanon war was pre-planned: report http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/08/us-israel-lebanon-olmert-idUSL0846900220070308

      The Real Reason for Israel’s Wars on Gaza And Lebanon http://www.wrmea.org/2006-september-october/the-real-reason-for-israels-wars-on-gaza-and-lebanon.html

      Olmert’s leaked testimony reveals real goal of summer war http://electronicintifada.net/content/olmerts-leaked-testimony-reveals-real-goal-summer-war/6803

      The Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: A Stage of the Broader Middle East Military Roadmap
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-premeditated-nature-of-the-war-on-lebanon-a-stage-of-the-broader-middle-east-military-roadmap/6659

      and from 12.30.2014: In defense simulation, Hezbollah border attack doesn’t lead to war http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/In-simulation-Hezbollah-border-attack-doesnt-lead-to-war-386107

    • @amigo:)
      Oh gosh!! I am sorry!! It is late and I am sometimes dense when it comes to that at this hour! I usually get those things hehehe maybe that 5th coffee wasn't good for me after all;p sorry again!:)

    • @amigo :)
      You should have read the whole text. First of all it was about how some Jewish scholars in XIX/XX century treated him. Second: the "Jew" part in INRI is an English translation. In Greek is Ἰουδαίων in Latin is Iūdaeōrum. In the comment I gave a link to other texts referring to the problem with that term, about how it was used by Romans, its various meanings in Greek, etc. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/reporter-palestinians-concessions#comment-736578 I won't repeat here. Also in the New Testament, the "King of the Jews” title is used by Pontius Pilate, and Roman soldiers. Some scholars see it as a form of mockery...[and I think it was once mentioned at the beginning also using Ἰουδαίων].
      Remember also the problem of many translations of those texts, how terms were differently used, how the texts were written, modified etc. About the term and its meaning you can also read The Jewish Annotated New Testament, from p. 524.
      The comments+the books and articles all show the problem of translations of that word, its diff meaning. Roland Deines shows the many questions that revolve around Galilee, various Jewish traditions (you will read that "Jewish traditions" can't be only associated with religion, but also with some kind of ethnos, customs, laws, especially when it comes to proselytes+ the mix of it all), tensions between them, etc.

      I say again one must be careful using modern terms to ancient ones, to their ideas, various meanings, etc. I was only writing that there are many discussions on the issue, and saying that for example in 100% Jesus was a "Jew" (in what meaning?) or not; or that he saw himself as a "Jew" or not has no sense, unless some1 has direct contact with him and can ask the question directly. During history Jews saw him in various ways, moods towards him changed and I pointed that out. The same is with Christian scholars.

    • You should know that Jewish scholars have had different concepts of "Jesus the Jew" ;] Their ideas changed in time.;]
      First they claimed that he wasn't a "true Jew". Roland Deines who examined the literature about that subject points that:
      Upon closer examination it can be seen that reference to Galilee nearly always serves either the inner-Jewish qualification of Jesus or his distancing from his Jewish context, whereby the transition from one position to the other is often rather fluid. The first of these phenomena are already encountered in the New Testament and it appears again in the nineteenth century, especially in the beginnings of modern Jewish study of Jesus. Here Jesus, as a Galilean, is neither a Jerusalemite nor a Judean, but rather is placed on the fringe of the religious and social Jewish centers (where “Jewish” indirectly stands for “Judean”). Heinrich Graetz, in his turn-of-the-century work, maintained that, since Jesus was a Galilean, it is “impossible that his knowledge of the law could match the [Jerusalem] standard,” which then explains his conflicts with the Pharisees, being less about his messianic claims than about his ignorance of (and contempt for) halakhah. Nevertheless, Jesus’ relative “success” among his Jewish contemporaries had to be explained, and the solution offered was that his “intensely sympathetic character” made up for his “deficiency in knowledge.” With his enthusiastic and charismatic manner of preaching, he was able to impress the equally ill-educated, but all-the-more-spirited Galilean country folk and later also the gentiles, who were offered his message in Paul’s altered form intended for pagans. He made little impression, however, on the real (“true”) Judaism as taught by Hillel and Shammai.
      Graetz (1817–1891), who was one of the first representatives of the academic study of Judaism that also studied Jesus, represents fairly well the main thrust of the Jewish contributions to Jesus research in the nineteenth century and beyond, which was adopted in Christian scholarship as well. As a Galilean, Jesus belonged to an uneducated, half-pagan fringe form of Judaism that was guided more by feeling (and therefore also by sentimentality and rash, volatile temperament) than intellect. It was this milieu in which Jesus grew up, and here (and only here!) was he successful, where people were foolish enough to follow him and to consider him to be special. For Jerusalemites and Judeans, however, “humanity’s salvation came from Zion and Jerusalem, it had to come from Judean blood.” With this sentence from Armand (Aaron) Kaminka (1866–1950) the academic study of Judaism reached its zenith in terms of distancing Jesus from Judaism: as a Galilean, Jesus belonged to a “mixed race,” which had the status of a foreign nation to Judea. And with this, although hidden behind a few circumlocutions, on account of his Galilean origins some scholars repudiated the claim that Jesus belonged among the Jewish people.
      About half a century later, this topic was resumed by some New Testament scholars, who took it as their task to formulate a “völkische,” or “German” theology. Their ideologically driven and firmer conclusions resulted in, first, the claim that Jesus most likely had non-Jewish origins and, second, the founding of the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Influence on German Church Life, which had the task of making the German church “judenfrei” (that is, free of Jews). Probably the most influential book among the publications of this institute was Walter Grundmann’s Jesus der Galiläer und das Judentum (Jesus the Galilean and Judaism).
      The starting point of recent Galilee research, which was spearheaded by the late Seán Freyne’s first monograph on the history of Galilee, is diametrically opposed to the process of alienation of Jesus from Judaism mentioned above. Instead it can be understood as a catalyst for the present (“third”) quest for the historical Jesus. The “Third Quest,” in almost opposite fashion, favor the plausibility and similarity criterion. This means that those things that associated Jesus with contemporary Judaism were now deemed most likely to be authentic. But here it had to be asked: With what form, variant, or stream of Judaism? At that time Jesus was seen to be facing a mostly Pharisaic-rabbinic–influenced “nomistic” Judaism, whereas now plurality of form and content is emphasized, together with geographic diversity, not only between the land of Israel and the Diaspora but also within the Jewish motherland itself. In terms of geography, Galilean Judaism is now differentiated from Judean and Samaritan Judaism, and in addition to these regional differences (which are further defined internally, for example, with Upper and Lower Galilee as culturally different regions), there are also sociological (for example, the difference between urban and rural, and foreign dominated and indigenous populations) and cultural variations (for example, level of hellenization, education, religious links). This change in Jewish studies forces one to define carefully any placement of Jesus on this by now rather intricate map of the Jewish world.

      In more recent times, when Zionism developed the study of Jesus has become incorporated into the Zionist vision of ancient history- the mission to make the idea of a "Jew" more homogeneous, and the land itself... That is why more works were written about "Jesus the Jew"- a reverse trend in comparison to the previous Jewish writings on the matter.
      But still scholars see the diff between Judean (which itself has diff meanings: link: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/reporter-palestinians-concessions#comment-736578) and Galilean and Jews from Galilee can't be just equated with those from Judea + there are diff among Galileans themselves :) Galilee was Judaised for about a century in Jesus times...their form of Judaism wasn't the same as in Judea, etc. + we must remember that not only "Jews" (diff. meanings) lived there....
      Plus... even today there are diff concepts for a "Jew". Zionism represents only 1 + it is a nationalistic project, and even among Zionists there are diff opinions about that, for example:
      1.Kimmerling B., The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society, and the Military, University of California Press, 2001
      2.Ohana D., The shaping of Israeli identity: myth, memory, and trauma, Routledge 3.Orr A., Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, 1994
      4.Oz A., The Sabra: the creation of the new Jew, University of California Press, 2000
      5.Piterberg G., The Returns of Zionism: Myths, Politics and Scholarship in Israel, Verso, 2008
      6.Shabi R., We Look Like the Enemy: The Hidden Story of Israel's Jews from Arab Lands, Walker & Company, 2008
      7.Sternhell Z.,The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State, Princeton University Press, Nowy Jork 1999
      8.Yehuda N., Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995
      9.Yehuda N., Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada, Humanity Books, 2002
      10.Zerubavel Y., Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition, University Of Chicago Press, 1995
      11.Ammiel Alcalay, "After Jews And Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture"
      12."Lives in Common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron"

      So if one wants to write that Jesus was a Jew it can't be understood in contemporary ways of thinking about that identity.

      Going back to the issue itself- Roland Deines:
      But what is known about Galilee in the time of Jesus? One look at the prevailing litera- ture shows that behind this simple question is not just one but a whole plethora of questions:
      What do we know about the history of settlement and population of Galilee? Was there a specific Galilean Judaism? Or even several? How far is the piety in the villages of Galilee different from that of the two cities Sepphoris and Tiberias? What differences are there between Jewish life in Upper and Lower Galilee? What is Galilee’s relationship to Judea, and to the temple?
      Were there Pharisees in Galilee? What status did the priests have there? How did the administration of the villages work?And finally—how does Jesus fit into this? What molded and formed him as a Galilean? The range of answers given to these questions is vast and can only be illustrated here with a few representative examples. MORE in: Galilee and the Historical Jesus in Recent Research, by Roland Deines.

  • 'NYT' reporter says Palestinians must make 'concessions... they have long avoided'
    • @Robert:
      It is nice that you skipped the points that aren't that convenient for you. Why not read the whole book yourself?
      But first:
      Palestinians had their own vision of their identity, geography, society, etc. BEFORE the British got there. Even the Ottoman Empire recognized that in practice a Palestinian territorial unit was functioning (economically, socially, etc)...read about vilayet Filastin or Sanjak of Jerusalem.
      Khalidi, Palestinian Identity Read also: B. Abu-Manneh, The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century, [in:] The Israel/Palestine Question,ed. I. Pappe, Routledge, London 1999 J. Bussow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1972-1908, Brill, Leiden 2011 There you will read about: "vilayet Filastin" (in Rashid Khalidi, Palestinain Identity, page 151) which was used next to: "Kuds-i Serif Eyaleti". Also in Doumani, Rediscovering Palestine also in works of Salim Tamari.
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin#comment-732760
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin#comment-732844
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin#comment-732794

      Qafisheh wrote [about the LEGAL approach to nationality]:
      ... Yet he failed to mention the fact that although there was no Palestinian state before 1948, Palestinian nationality was internationally recognized and Palestinian citizens had never been regarded or treated as stateless at the time. Nonetheless, the existence of a distinct Palestinian nationality during the period of British rule has never been denied by those writers who have addressed the issue of Palestinian refugees. A few studies, particularly those advocating the right of return, have indeed given the question of nationality some legal account; however, they did so without sufficient discussion... However, no writer (including those Israeli authors who questioned the right of Palestinian refugees to return), has denied the existence of Palestinian nationality under the mandate. Thus, it was interestingly observed, “... the unanimous recognition of a proper nationality for their [i.e. Mandated-territories of Class ‘A’] inhabitants might throw light upon the status and the rights of the Palestinian Arab refugees acquired under the Mandate”.
      Most of these studies, including one conducted by the present writer, have merely provided an overview of Palestinian nationality and failed to reach the heart of the problem.

      Chapter II is devoted to nationality under the Ottoman Empire, as the status of ‘Ottoman subject’ was required for the automatic acquisition of Palestinian nationality when the latter nationality was first initiated.

      Chapter V, which will clarify the status of ‘natural Palestinians’, or those individuals whose Ottoman nationality was automatically replaced by Palestinian nationality upon the enforcement of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order. The status of Ottoman subjects who were habitually residing in Palestine (and who constituted the bulk of the Palestinian population) upon the enforcement of the said Order will be first reviewed. The problematic status of those persons who were born in Palestine but were residing abroad upon the enforcement of the same Order will then be addressed in the light of the applicable law and in accordance with the practice of the British Empire and the British-run Government of Palestine.

      What you don't uderstand is that:
      In the Mandatory text and in the reports made by the British Mandatory power, Palestine was regarded as a territorial unit, set apart from others. Besides the Ottoman citizens who are considered Palestinians or who can apply for Palestinian citizenship in line with international law on the succession of states, Palestinian citizenship can be acquired by birth, naturalisation, marriage, or permission.

      On page 72: Palestinian nationality existed despite a lack of comprehensive legislative regulation.
      On page 73: This British practice was in line with the overall British policy towards Palestine at the time. Such policy was included in a statement presented to the British Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 23 June 1922 (commonly known as ‘the White Paper’). Among other things, the White Paper declared:
      [I]t is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.

      On page 76:Using ‘nationality’ and ‘citizenship’ in this article implied that both terms were synonymous. It also demonstrated that the definition of nationality was considered to presume the existence of a legal relationship between the individuals and Palestine as a mandated territory, or as a state. In other words, Palestinian nationality, at least in the way in which it was ‘framed’, was not based upon racial, religious or other political considerations. Indeed, “la citoyenneté palestinienne n’est pas une nationalité juive”; nor, equally, was such ‘citoyenneté’ deemed to be “une nationalité arabe”. Therefore, “under Article 7 of the Mandate, the intention to take up permanent residence in Palestine is a sine qua non in the case of those Jews whose acquisition of Palestinian citizenship is to be facilitated”.

      MORE: The British policy later shifted- White Paper of 1939. On page 207: limiting the total Jewish immigrants to 75,000 in five years). It may be recalled that the Palestine Royal Commission, which had visited the country in 1936, recommended to the British government, inter alia, the restriction of the future Jewish immigration into Palestine. In general, the Government of Palestine’s control of immigrates after 1939 was in line with the White Paper’s policy.The definition of the term ‘foreigner’ had been the logical result of the recognition of a distinct Palestinian nationality. In virtue of various immigration legislation, a ‘foreigner’, or ‘alien’, was regarded as any person who was not a Palestinian citizen under the Citizenship Order of 1925.
      On page 223:
      This position was to change after the outbreak of World War II. In December 1939,
      the British government decided that “no facilities were to be granted to any person of whatever nationality who came from or who had visited German territory since the beginning of the war”. Thus, immigration into Palestine became restricted for two reasons. The first, as already noted, was the British policy adopted with the White Paper of 1939, which reflected Palestinian Arab fears of Jewish immigration.978 The second reason related to the status of enemy nationals of those persons who possessed German nationality, which related, in turn, to security concerns surrounding persons coming from Germany.
      Nonetheless, certain exceptions to these rules were accorded on humanitarian
      grounds to Jewish refugees escaping from Europe.

      Zionist project and Palestinian national movement resulted in:
      At the end of the British rule, the law and facts concerning nationality in Palestine faced a new controversy. In legal terms, original and naturalized Palestinian citizens (Christians, Jews, Muslims and others) were equal nationals, regardless of their religion. In reality, however, these citizens were divided into two ‘Palestinian peoples’: Arab and Jewish. In such a situation, Palestinian nationality, as well as the entire future of the country, was arriving at a historical juncture. Page 253.
      Plus:
      UN partition plan envisioned that there would be a Palestinian Arab majority in the "Jewish" part (Arabs=509.780, Jews= 499.020 in Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. Report of Sub-Committee 2: unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf on page 41)- Zionists knew that very well... Palestinian support for the partition wouldn't change much regarding Zionist political strategy... Plus, right after the vote Jews attacked Palestinian villages and people. Gurion even ordered to attack the villages that signed a non-aggression pact- he wanted to provoke Palestinians to fight (in Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel)

      On page 257:
      The Partition Plan’s principle on nationality in the future entities of Palestine was straight-forward. Palestinian citizens, irrespective of their religion, residing in the Arab State, would become citizens of that Arab State (but not Arab citizens). Likewise, Palestinian citizens, also regardless of their religion, residing in the Jewish State would become citizens of that Jewish State (but not Jewish citizens).
      ALSO:... foreigners residing in the Arab State or the Jewish State (regardless of whether they were Arabs, Jews or neither) could not automatically become citizens in either State (p.258).
      Page 259:(1) the nationality of the Arab State (but not an ‘Arab
      nationality’—in the sense that the Arab State nationality should not only be given to persons belonging to the Arab race); or (2) the nationality of the Jewish State (but not a ‘Jewish nationality’—which means that the Jewish State nationality could be conferred on non-Jews). Thus, the Plan had merely applied an established rule of international law with regard to this point.
      The basis of the automatic change from Palestinian nationality into the nationalities of post-Palestine entities, therefore, is derived from the law of state succession, whatever the legal validity of the Plan itself.

      Partition Plan had merely declared the legal rules relating to the future nationalities in the Arab State and the Jewish State; it did not create these nationalities.

      Jerusalem: Thus, Palestinian citizens as well as foreigners of all nationalities
      who were residing at the time in Jerusalem were eligible to be Jerusalem’s nationals. By the end of 1944, the settled population in Jerusalem numbered 240,880. Of this number, 140,530 persons were Arabs (96,760 Muslims and 43,770 Christians), 100,200 were Jews (both Palestinian and foreign), and there were 150 others.The exact number of non-Jews and non-Arab foreigners was unknown.

      By recognizing the de facto presence of foreign Jews in Palestine, the nationality provisions of the Plan recognized the pre-existing facts in Palestine. However, while the provisions admitted certain rules of international law relating to state succession, they generally ignored the domestic nationality law applicable in Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 and its amendments).Obviously, the Plan attached greater importance to the Arab race and to the Jewish religion (both political criteria) than to the bond of nationality (a legal criterion) as bases for the future nationalities in the projected post-Palestine entities. Happily, the existence of a distinct Palestinian nationality was not denied in principle.

      Do you see now? British Mandate legally facilitated Jewish immigration, but not the creation of an actual "Jewish national home". There was no Jewish, nor Arab nation but Palestinian!!! Zionists had sth else in mind... That status didn't give the Zionists a state of their own, they were supposed to be and live along other Palestinians, who expressed their own identity (that is not Zionist), own national rights, vision of their state that based on their own traditions, who saw the Zionists immigrants as alien (and rightly so).
      That was why Zionists had to create a "state within a state" to implement in practice that "Jewish home" of theirs...
      So the British did facilitate Jewish immigration (not for long though) but that wasn't enough for the Zionists...They didn't want to become Palestinian citizens alongside people who they didn't considered as "Jewish" (their own vision of it) and who were in majority, who would take control of the state after the departure of the British and implement their own laws, etc. So Zionists acted on their own...
      The various British policy towards that is a different issue. Only what happened on the ground- the rivalry of two national movements CHANGED the policy, which resulted in the partition plan.
      So the British Mandate wasn't to become a "Jewish national home"... as the Zionists envisioned it... The British were obligated to help to create a Palestinian state with Palestinian nationals [Arab and Jewish- if you want to keep that division.. local Jews had a diff opinion on that though- MORE in:
      1.Ammiel Alcalay, "After Jews And Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture"
      2."Lives in Common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron"
      3.Shabi R., We Look Like the Enemy: The Hidden Story of Israel's Jews from Arab Lands, Walker & Company, 2008
      4.Yuval Ben-Bassat "Late Ottoman Palestine"
      5.S. Tamari, Mountain against the Sea: Essays on Palestinian Society and Culture
      or
      1.Kimmerling B., The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society, and the Military, University of California Press, 2001
      2.Ohana D., The shaping of Israeli identity: myth, memory, and trauma, Routledge
      3.Orr A., Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, 1994
      4.Oz A., The Sabra: the creation of the new Jew, University of California Press, 2000
      5.Piterberg G., The Returns of Zionism: Myths, Politics and Scholarship in Israel, Verso, 2008
      6.Sternhell Z.,The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State, Princeton University Press, Nowy Jork 1999
      7.Yehuda N., Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995
      8.Yehuda N., Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada, Humanity Books, 2002
      9.Zerubavel Y., Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition, University Of Chicago Press, 1995

    • ...The effect of this discursive device is very clear: it creates a sense of familiarity... But the lay reader cannot develop such disciplinary senses. So for the lay Israeli reader, a feeling of sameness or closeness is fabricated through the ability to read the Ugaritic text in a legible and culturally esteemed form. This Biblicized pseudo-Ugaritic text, and the aesthetic gratification that the reader derives from "understanding Ugaritic", licenses the creation of a subject position believing in the unity of Ugaritic and Hebrew, which harmonizes with Canaanite political discourse.
      On the other hand, a reconstructed representation of the original Ugaritic text would estrange the text from the lay Israeli ear.Without the corrected forms, Ugaritic would seem to non-initiates more like Arabic than like Hebrew. For example, the stock of consonants in Ugaritic is similar to that of Arabic; Ugaritic and Arabic have a three vowel system while Hebrew in th Israeli form has five (and even more in the Biblical form); both Ugaritic and Arabic have case endings on nouns, a feature that had been lost in Biblical Hebrew.
      More in:Hebrew and Zionism: A Discourse Analytic Cultural Study, by Ron Kuzar. This fragment is on p. 251.

    • Ty Annie:)
      The whole problem is that some people try to translate other languages that had more sounds with “square Hebrew” (or square Aramaic) that has only 22 sounds. Cana‛anite had 28 signs and sounds, Ugaritic had basically 28 sounds, although it used cuneiform- 30 signs on clay tablets and wanted to distinguish the three alephs, a-u-e. Arabic has also 28 sounds and is better for this. Peter T. Daniels and William Bright admit that The wedge script records an inventory of sounds that is closer to that found in Classical Arabic (ca. 28 sounds) than to that found in Biblical Hebrew (ca. 22 sounds) but still try to translate ancient languages using square Hebrew. From the '50s there a book "The Lexical Relation Between Ugaritic and Arabic". In " Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections" on page 30 you can see how Arabic and Ugaritic are similar https://books.google.pl/books?id=ShcFfQZrEzAC&pg=PA30&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
      The cuneiform alphabet in South Arabic sequence found at Beth Shemesh (Dietrish-
      Loretz 1988a, 277-96) would comprise the geographic link between the South Arabic alphabet of the south and the South Arabic alphabet of Ugarit.
      Ra'ad:
      Another strategy to minimize Ugaritic connections uses euphemisms such as “contacts” and “cognate” to explain linguistic or other links, misleading because they elide the huge time distance between Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. To maintain a notion of Israelite special distinction or an exclusionary “uniqueness,” Ugaritic texts are said to show an epic or mythic tradition “assimilated” to express the imagery of God. An allied strategy appropriates recent discoveries into the confines of the faith, arguing for “transformations”: “the Bible intentionally employed words and images from these mythological stories. ... The strangeness of the Bible will remain.”
      !!Fortunately, corrections are beginning to be made to such evasions and misguided attempts that try to keep the Bible as superior rather than see it as an intermediary reference. An introduction by Adrian Curtis to the recent Handbook of Ugaritic Studies acknowledges that “the issue of the relevance of the discoveries at Ugarit for the study of the Hebrew Bible ... has been unduly dominant, at the expense of an appreciation of Ugarit and its texts in their own right.” Curtis mentions the common illusion that “the newly discovered language was seen as akin to Hebrew.” However, this impression is corrected in a chapter by two of the best experts in the field, Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, who note that: “The language they [the 30 signs] represented could be described as an idiom which in terms of content seemed to be comparable to Canaanite texts, but from a phonological perspective, however, was more like Arabic.” Moreover, the discovery at Ugarit of an abecedary arranged in the same order as the “South Semitic” alphabet has led to the suggestion that people from the south, whether the Arabian Peninsula or southeastern Palestine, migrated to Ugarit or otherwise influenced it in the middle of the second millennium bce.
      Ra'ad in "Hidden Hisotires" has more about it all- with nice bibliography :)

    • @Robert:
      About how Arabic preserved ancient names... I wrote:
      process of changing the names to " biblical", ie "original" started back in the 20's. The problem is that even Zionists themselves (the researchers) argue that multiple translations of the Bible distorted the names, so they often had to rename the Arabic names instinctively and guess how they should sound like in Hebrew ... All this action is political, to show that "original" inhabitants "returned". The names of various places are intended to be the evidence of their "originality" - but as it turns out they are not. If you like it or not it is a proces of renaming the places- to justify the expulsion of Arab inhabitants and replacing them with new Jewish ones- to divert the attention from the colonization process and to give the impression that arch-absent residents are in fact "returning" and not colonizing. As Ra'ad writes: "Yohanan Aharoni (one of the early authorities on Israeli geography) and others are forced to admit the errors in Hebrew transcription, even as they want to insist that biblical or other Hebrew sources of names are the genuine or original ones: “the biblical sources have undergone a long process of oral and written transcription ... some errors with regard to place names have crept in". At the same time, to give more credence to the Hebrew forms, Aharoni has to argue that transcription problems “exist mainly in the non-biblical sources, especially the Egyptian and Akkadian,” although these are the only available and fairly reliable sources (Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, p. 100-104). Yael Elitzur, a recent Israeli writer on toponymy (place naming), concedes the role of the “autochthonous inhabitants” in continuing the preservation of names (Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land, p. 2.), though who these undefined indigenous people are remains too sensitive for Elitzur to name them directly—viz. the Palestinians" (Ra'ad, p. 178) "Yohanan Aharoni’s The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography is a typical early example of how Zionists deal with toponyms. For Aharoni, the place names are the ancient ones confirmed in the Bible, transmitted later in Aramaic, and then with the Muslim conquest in 638 ce they took on the “Arabic mouth.” This fallacious premise leads to several linguistic jumps that contradict even his own list of toponyms that show ancient Egyptian or other regional variants are different from and more natural than the Hebrew. [...] Other Israeli writers attempt to maintain this illusion of continuity and naturalness in relation to the modern imposition of the Hebrew names. They want to consider the Arabic influence as a “distortion” and that the Hebrew names have now been “regained,” contradicting the linguistic evidence and failing to give any credit to the Palestinian population that preserved the names: “many of the place-names were transmitted from ancient times, from one generation to another". (Ra'ad, p.184-185) "...a 1986 monograph by Thomas L. Thompson and F. C. Goncalvez entitled Toponomie Palestinienne: Plaine de St Jean D’Acre et Corridor de Jerusalem. This study shows how the Zionist toponymy project, originally established as early as 1920 to “restore” Hebrew names or to create names of symbolic meaning, went much further than its original mandate. There was simply not enough tradition to go by, so it could only continue by picking out biblical or Jewish associations at random. It had to Hebraize Arabic names, or in other cases translate Arabic to Hebrew to give the location an ideologically consistent identity. For example, some locations were rendered from Arabic into the Hebrew phonetic system: Minet el-Muserifa became Horvat Mishrafot Yam and Khirbet el Musherifa was changed to Horvat Masref. Sometimes, in this artificial process, the committees forgot about certain genuine Jewish traditions, as in the case of the total canceling of the Arabic name Khirbet Hanuta, not recognizing that it probably rendered the Talmudic Khanotah. This forced exercise of re-naming often even went against biblical tradition, most notably in erasing the Arabic names Yalu and ‛Imwas. Yalu became Ayallon, while ‛Imwas, Western Emmaus, associated with the Christ story, was one of three villages, along with Beit Nuba, razed in 1967. According to the Israeli writer Meron Benvenisti in Sacred Landscape, in order for a total map of the “Land of Israel” to be created, and since only a small number of place names could conceivably be linked to anything mentioned in the Bible, the renaming often became a forced exercise in making arbitrary connections, sometimes picking words at random from the Bible or translating to Hebrew the indigenous Arabic names and pretending they were Hebrew". (Ra'ad, p.188-189) Read the footnotes he provides in his book: he quotes multiple scholars on the matter and gives detailed descriptions of language problems concerning the above issues.

      So you are again wrong... People in historical Palestine have had their own ideas about themselves, land and it changed it time (da...) I wrote about how modern Palestinians used the term throughout history, gave you books about the ancient history of the land, that show that "Jews" were living there among other ppl who didn't suddenly disappear... they shared some ideas, traditions, languages...etc. Don't mix Israelites with Hebrew and Jews... A Jew doesn't = Judean, etc. Not to mention you must learn more about languages of the region... and even how Hebrew was developing and what problem modern Hebrew brings when it comes to translations of ancient names, languages, etc...
      Besides... different people live differently, there is no "right" script for doing that...you are just picking some narratives that you think will help you but instead it is doing the opposite. Jews in ancient time weren't the Jews constructed by historical vision of Zionism, and even many modern Israeli scholars agree to that.They used different terms, language, ideas, as other people that lived there ALSO did that!

      I know you won't read those books...but somebody else will...

    • Thank you Annie :) I will add @Robert:
      :) here we go again :)
      This happens when you don't read about the thing you comment- I gave you archaeological books about Israel/Palestine- there many scholars [Israeli, and other arch] show that there NEVER was only "Jewish" presence + there wasn't any 1 original "Jewish" culture, etc.-READ THOSE BOOKS! YOUR OLD AND FALSE GENERALISATIONS WON'T HELP AGAINST THOSE SCHOLARLY BOOKS.
      The term nation doesn't apply to ancient times, etc. Don't use modern terms to ancient history! When you wrote about that "Jew"-"Judean" thing it became you not only don't have any knowledge about the past but also you didn't even stop to think that "Jew" is an English word that can hardly apply to ancient meaning of a term!
      You clearly have know idea about the ancient history of the land, not to mention about Jewish history so you use typical general and old/refuted narration. Since when invention of a name=nation? hmm? where did you get that from? That is just pure nationalistic narration, and if you knew any better it can be used against Jews... [+they until recently avoided the name like fire]
      And of course you need to learn more about Arabic and even Hebrew... Christopher A. Rollston and many others nicely show how [in his case] Hebrew took from other languages, how it evolved and how modern Hebrew was created ;]
      You didn't even read about the term "ioudaios"? hmmm??

      When it comes to language remember that sounds are important not their representation in writing. Having this in mind: scholars don't know where Cana‛an the alphabet originated—though southern Palestine, near the borders of Egypt, seems the more probable geography, in view of the discovery of a proto-alphabet at Serabit el Khadim. It used pictures of common objects to represent their initial sounds in the form of 28 letters in writing. For example first sign stood for the three long vowels a-u-e (alif).The next basic letter, B, comes from beit, which meant “house” in Cana‛anite (and still means “house” in Arabic).

      Many scholars now take a different approach in their study of languages, because they noticed that the religious or national narrations distort their view (Read for example C. Calhoun about nationalism about this and its impact on science, or Michael Billig "Banal Nationalism" and works of Michel Foucault). Without much scientific evidence some scholar at first started backdating Hebrew as a language or a script in order to place it in a position of ascendancy against other ancient languages, but Ugarit findings make it now impossible to uphold. Different Encyclopaedias have various approaches to the subject. For example Collier’s Encyclopedia entry on “Alphabet” backdate an early “Hebrew” alphabet to eleventh century bce, and neglect the fact that the Israelites were preliterate. BUT Encyclopaedia Judaica from 1971 clarifies that the “Hebrews” adopted the Cana‛anite alphabet and “followed the current Phoenician script until the ninth century,” then adopted a variety of Aramaic. As Ra'ad writes (Hidden Histories, p.103): "Even if one doubts the equation of “Hebrew” with “Israelite” and with the much later religion Judaism, this hypothetical explanation of the descent of Hebrew as a script at least avoids moving branches and burying other branches in the alphabet tree". He adds:"The tree in Daniels and Bright’s The World’s Writing Systems is generally accepted: from proto-Cana‛anite, the 28-letter linear script developed around 2000 bce and wedge-shaped Ugaritic around 1500 bce. From linear Cana‛anite developed Old Arabian scripts and “Phoenician” around 1200 bce. The reduced “Phoenician” 22-letter alphabet dominated northern and western regions of Greater Syria until about 850 bce, with various “script varieties” deriving from it, such as Aramaic. From Aramaic (an international language from about 700 bce) developed later “Semitic” scripts, including square Hebrew. Arabic more likely developed from a pre-1300 bce South Semitic group, since it retained a 28-letter alphabet. (Ra'ad 103-104, and Saggs, Civilization Before Greece and Rome, p.83–84.).

      After Ugarit many scholars attempted to link it somehow to Hebrew to backdate the origins of this language, despite the fact that the connection to Arabic of the original Cana‛anite, Southern Arabic and Ugaritic is more demonstrable if sounds are examined rather than merely the shapes of letters, which are different from each other.The original Cana‛anite had 28 signs and sounds. Similarly, Ugaritic had basically 28 sounds, although it used cuneiform technology to etch 30 signs on clay tablets and wanted to distinguish the three alephs, a-u-e. Arabic today has 28 sounds. Thus, the sound systems of Arabic, proto-Cana‛anite, South Arabian, and Ugaritic are basically identical. Modern Arabic letters evolved differently and eventually the writing used the cursive joining of letters to form words.

      And here we come to the problem of Transcriptions. Many scholars, both Western and Israeli, tend to transcribe inscriptions in South Arabian (which, like modern Arabic, has 28 signs), Cana‛anite/Phoenician, and Aramaic, using the 22-letter “square Hebrew” (or square Aramaic). Even a standard and generally reliable reference, The World’s Writing Systems, arbitrarily decides to render the 30 alphabetic signs from Ugarit, almost completely identical to Arabic, in a chart that has “Ugaritic Scripts with Hebrew Equivalents.” At the same time, the text tells us: “The wedge script records an inventory of sounds that is closer to that found in Classical Arabic (ca. 28 sounds) than to that found in Biblical Hebrew (ca. 22 sounds).” - in: Peter T. Daniels and William Bright, The World’s Writing Systems, p. 92.

      Some scholars having problems with all this started to introduce the notion of a “Hebreo-Philistine” script, some even coin the term: “Hebreo-Philistine". Ra'ad pointed out that this is a strategy that pervades the treatment of ancient languages in relation to Hebrew, for the languages are not identified as Cana‛anite, Ugaritic, Aramaic or Hebrew, but by the hyphenated “Hebrew-Aramaic” or “Hebrew-Canaanite” or now “Hebreo-Philistine”. EXAMPLE:“Gezer calendar,”which dates to the tenth or eleventh century bce-by some is classified as “ancient Hebrew". Other scholars observe that the calendar is written in signs that are “Phoenician,” similar to other inscriptions in the whole region in that period; in this case, the letters show some demonstrable affinities to Moabite. More and more scholars see Arabic as a storehouse and inventory of ancient languages. Read the research by Christopher A. Rollston, a professor at Emmanuel School of Religion. That is why there are problems with transcription to Hebrew and then again from Hebrew to other languages: there are vowel shifts in Hebrew (such as a—o, ‘a—a, a—e) and consonant sounds (such as q/k, b/v and p/f). Arabic form retains an initial guttural sound ̔a, a q in the second syllable and "long a" in the last syllable, whereas the Hebrew and Western usage misses the initial guttural, has k in the middle, and o in the last syllable. And this is how we arrive to your problem with Akka/Akko that is which one in "original" or ancient. Ra'ad sums it up:giving the impression that the sound "o" is original or legitimate in the names Zionist source cites “Acco, Canaanite ‛Aka” without noting of course how exact the Arabic-Cana‛anite correspondence is. Varieties in Hebrew are largely the result of a transmission process through scholarly and religious traditions at a time when the language was practically dead or fossilized, or used only in scholarly and rabbinical practices—that in fact the Arabic variety, despite some natural changes, is a genuine one for the reason that Arabic preserved the original “Semitic” sound inventory.

      In "Hidden Histories" you can read: debates about square Hebrew as merely a script variety of Aramaic...
      OR: The Ugaritic alphabet contains signs representing sounds that are exactly the same as the 28-letter Cana‛anite alphabet and the 28-letter Arabic alphabet—the only difference being that there are three signs for the aleph.

      A respectable reference, The World’s Writing Systems, tells us that the wedge-shaped script records an inventory of sounds that is closer to that found in Classical Arabic (ca. 28 sounds) than to that found in biblical Hebrew (ca. 22 sounds)....Ugaritic-Arabic equivalence of many words, like brq (meaning “lightning”), krm (“vineyard”), kf (transcribed as kp, “palm of the hand”), mlk (“king”), mzn (“scale”).

      What complicates the problem here more than elsewhere are not just the linguistic intricacies but more immediately the contention, or pretense, by Zionist scholars and naming committees that they were restoring the “original” names. Ashkelon and Acco, both without the initial guttural ̔a... In fact, names like “Ashkelon” and “Acco” have come about through a transcription tradition (which distorted many sounds) and were thus accepted in Jewish and Western usage. In other words, they are Israeli reinstatements of variants that are in effect fossils rather than originals...

      Zionist claims assume that the Arabic forms are more recent and arose after the Arab/Muslim “conquest” in 638 ce, which changed or “distorted” place names, as if Arabic were a totally foreign language alien to its region.

      Ironically, however, the same city names assumed to be more recent (that is, the ones used in Arabic, ‛Asqalan and ‛Akka) are much closer to the original names found in hieroglyphic that date back around 4000 years, as recorded in Egyptian sources, and a few hundred years later in cuneiform in the Tal el ‛Amarneh correspondence... Akka has not changed its name for more than 4000 years, while the Arabic ‛Asqalan is very close to the ancient name. They both represent a better preservation of the original than the biblical writings or Western renderings. To explain the discrepancy in these and other names involves a number of linguistic matters concerning Arabic and Hebrew, including vowel shifts in Hebrew guessing (such as a—o, ‘a—a, a—e) and consonant sounds (such as q/k, b/v and p/f), as well as issues relating to the transcription of the original sources and of the biblical and later renderings.
      In the case of ‛Asqalan/Ashkelon, the Arabic form retains an initial guttural sound ̔a, a q in the second syllable and a in the last syllable, whereas the Hebrew and Western usage misses the initial guttural, has k in the middle, and o in the last syllable.

      About the “p” should be “f.”-In his subchapter: Misleading Transcriptions:
      This arbitrary and biased practice is also what Gitin et al. practice as they try to decipher the Philistine/“Phoenician” inscription from ‛Aqrun, introducing the notion of a “Hebreo-Philistine” script. In another instance of fixation on Hebrew and the use of a Western linguistic tradition in application to regional place and personal names, a king mentioned in the inscription is called “Padi” (the consonants p and f have the same sign in Hebrew except for a dot mark introduced later in history). An obvious “Semitic” name would be Fadi (which means “one who sacrifices”). In this case, the name should be transcribed at least to posit both possibilities, as F/Padi, although f is more natural in this case (see later section on f/p).-SOMETHING FOR YOU HERE ;D SEE THAT SECTION!

      ... It is theorized that some of these Hebrew sounds northwest Semitic varieties, a somewhat incomplete theory. These are specific adaptations in guessing that influenced pronunciation, as in the vowel o/o(alif) common in modern Hebrew (as in the way Israelis changed ‛Akka to “Acco”), as well as the vowel e/e(alif) (as in the way the Naqab Desert has been made into “Negev” by the Israelis), in this case adding another transmission difference from the Western use of “Negeb” by having v for b. (Hebrew signsfor v /b and f/p are the same, except that dots were added later in the history of square Hebrew writing, after the introduction of diacritical marks in Syriac and Arabic).
      READ IN HIS BOOK ABOUT: F/Pisgah

      SO ACTUALLY ARABIC NAME WITH "F" IS THE CORRECT ONE... THE "P" WAS GIVEN THROUGH BAD TRANSLATION.... ;D WHY THE ISSUE? PROBLEM WITH SOUNDS... AGAIN:
      ...It is one of the irritating and inaccurate conventions of scholarship, both Western and Israeli, to transcribe inscriptions in South Arabian (which, like modern Arabic, has 28 signs), Cana‛anite/Phoenician, and Aramaic, using the 22-letter “square Hebrew” (square Aramaic really, as I explain later and in Chapters 1, 5, and 7).

    • I addressed it elsewhere...
      Robert... you do know that "Jew" is an English word do you?
      DON'T mix that up with the name of the region, that term got mixed up recently. Ioudaios meant not only Judeans and not all of the Judeans were Jews!
      There is a whole debate about the term "ioudaios".

      Ioudaios before and after “Religion”, by Annette Yoshiko Reed
      http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/ioudaios-religion-annette-yoshiko-reed/

      or: On the Meaning of the Term "Jew" in Greco-Roman Inscriptions, Ross S. Kraemer

      CONCLUSION
      This brief study, when added to the work already done by Kraabel,suggests that the terms loudaia, loudaios, ludaeus, and ludaea, especially when applied to individuals, must be interpreted with care. While inscriptions demonstrate that one could be called Jewish by ethnicity, or Jewish by religion or belief, some lend themselves to Kraabel's suggestion that geographic origin is intended. Most of the other inscriptions lend themselves to the explanation that non-Jews who affiliated with Judaism either took on the term, perhaps as a self-designation, or gave the term as a proper name to their children. And it may well be that the term was necessary especially in situations where the Jewishness of the individual might not be apparent,not only in cases of burial near pagan graves (as Frey suggested) but in cases where the individual did not begin life as a Jew.

      http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1509511?sid=21105037794891&uid=3738840&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=2129 It is free
      OR:

      MARTIN HENGEL, Ioudai/a in the Geographical List of Acts 2:9-11 and Syria as "Greater Judea"
      The appearance of Ioudaia in the geographical list presented in Acts 2:9-11 has puzzled interpreters almost from the time of the publication of the book of Acts. It will be argued that this word should be retained in the text and should be understood in the light of traditional and especially messianic ideas about the extent of the promised land. The close association of Judea and Syria is especially important for understanding the meaning of Ioudaia in Acts 2:9-11.
      ...The "Judea" introduced between Mesopotamia and Cappadocia and the "Cretans and Arabs" at the end remain a complete riddle. First, however, one must differentiate clearly between the purpose of the list provided by the evangelist Luke—who certainly intentionally shaped it this way, and who, as a well-traveled doctor and as traveling companion to Paul, possessed solid geographical knowledge—and the many-sided speculations concerning its derivation and its original meaning..... You don't have to agree with him about the whole interpretation, he incongruously uses the term "nation" to ancient times, but the text is informative and interesting.
      https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf

      And about that Arab thing of yours: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/reporter-palestinians-concessions#comment-736466
      I must add to what I wrote there: "Inhabitants weren't magically replaced by Arabs FROM THE PENINSULA AND OTHER REGIONS... IN VII CENTURY.". There were few waves of immigrants over many centuries, even studies about Arabic show that.
      I wrote earlier that being considered "Arab" should be understood more as being part of Arab culture (especially language) not some homogeneous ethnic group of some sorts (or race). Its only the national discourses that make "Jews" "Arabs" etc a coherent different group that must have originated from 1 place.

      More about the language (and bibliography about it can be found in B. Ra'ad's Hidden History). Some info here: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/limbaugh-company-blumenthal#comment-660103

    • Thank you Bornajoo! :) I also would like to thank Talknic for his comments!:) They are awesome!:)

    • Thank you MHughes976 :)
      You are right! Palestine was always multicultural and multiracial! There never was only "Jewish", "Arab" (etc.) presence. Also cultures there developed by drawing from each other: symbols, practices, etc. Like it is shown here: The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts; The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel and many other books that I have listed and in many others I haven't read yet :)
      Even the terms "Jewish" and "Arab" are the results of various group interactions over the centuries and are now debated over (that is, their meaning for diff groups, etc).Also interesting is the book by Gil Anidjar "Semites. Race, Religion, Literature".
      If you are interested in Jerusalem:
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/jq has free articles about Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Quarterly. Emek Shaveh has fine articles too.
      Ricca's article in "the Jerusalem Quarterly":
      S. Ricca, Heritage, Nationalism and the Shifting Symbolism of the Wailing Wall, “The Jerusalem Quarterly”, issue 24, 2005

      1.M. Benvenisti. City of Stone: The Hidden History of Jerusalem (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1996).
      2.S. Ricca, Reinventing Jerusalem: Israel’s Reconstruction of the Jewish Quarter after 1967 (London: I. B.Tauris 2007)
      3.N. Abu el-Haj. ‘Translating Truths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology, and the Remaking of Past and Present in Contemporary Jerusalem.’ American Ethnologist 25 (1998): 166-88.
      4.N. Abu El-Haj. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and
      Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society (University of Chicago Press, 2001).
      5..E.L. Martin, The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, Academy for Scriptural, Portland 1994.
      6.B. Ra'ad, Hidden Histories...,
      7.Even book by Hershel Shanks- he is clearly pro-zionist but his book: Jerusalem's Temple Mount: From Solomon to the Golden Dome is ok. Despite his pro-Jewish biases the book can be informative :)
      His article: H. Shanks, I Climbed Warren’s Shaft (But Joab Never Did) is also interesting. But his discussion with Christopher A. Rollston about “Jezebel” Seal I see as unprofessional (Shanks was very condescending towards him, not addressing the issue at hand properly), so I agree with Rollston's opinion, he is more convincing.
      8.Hezekiah’s Tunnel Reexamined. The dates assigned the Siloam Inscription and Jerusalem tunnels are questioned
      http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/hezekiah%E2%80%99s-tunnel-reexamined/
      9.V. Zink, A Quiet Transfer: The Judaization of Jerusalem, “Contemporary Arab Affairs” 2009, vol.2, issue 2
      10.R. Greenberg, Y. Mizrachi, From Shiloah to Silwan. Visitor’s Guide to Ancient Jerusalem (City of David) and the village of Silwan, Emek Shaveh, Jerusalem
      11. I know you are interested in ancient times, but this is also an interesting article:N. Sawhney, R. Yacoub, J. Norman, Jerusalem and Belfast: Envisioning Media Arts for Cultural Identity and Urban Renewal in Divided Cities, „The Jerusalem Quarterly”, issue 38, 2009.

      Good luck with your article! If you will need sth just write :) I will try to help:) I like searching for new info:)

    • Oh and 1 other thing:
      Regarding your: 1st point:don't just simply write that there is"incitement to genocide of the Jews"...don't confuse calls to resist against the occupier or poor anti-Israel propaganda with that! (since Israel also do that, it uses cheap anti-Palestinian propaganda too). Your links show anti-Israel and anti-jewish propaganda. Memri and palwatch are sites known for their errors, bad translations, they interpret events, words, etc. at their convenience....
      Oh I see there Itamar Marcus!!- I wrote about him earlier to you....yeah... he is "reliable"!! your links show anti-Israel and anti-jewish propaganda. Not incitement to genocide of the Jews.
      You want to see incitement to genocide? Here:
      Israeli lawmaker’s call for genocide of Palestinians gets thousands of Facebook likes
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-lawmakers-call-genocide-palestinians-gets-thousands-facebook-likes

      Incitement to Genocide “Incredibly Common in Israeli Political Discourse”
      Deputy Speaker of Israeli Knesset Called for Expulsion and Jewish Reoccupation of Gaza
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/incitement-to-genocide-incredibly-common-in-israeli-political-discourse/5396420

      Other incitement:
      “They Have To Die”: Israeli Politician’s Comments Calling For Killing of Mothers of Palestinians Trigger International Backlash
      http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/17/they-have-to-die-israeli-politicians-comments-calling-for-killing-of-mothers-of-palestinians-trigger-international-backlash/
      WAFA Monitors Incitement and Racism in Israeli Media
      http://palestinianmissionuk.com/human-rights/wafa-monitors-incitement-and-racism-in-israeli-media/
      Not to mention those many Facebook pages, promotion of killing Palestinians by the IDF (for example those shirts...)
      Israeli Incitement: Fueling Intolerance & Hate Crimes
      http://imeu.org/article/israeli-incitement-fueling-intolerance-hate-crimes
      http://www.wewiv.com/cat/israeli-media-incitement
      AND GUESS WHAT?! ISRAEL ACTUALLY DO KILL PALESTINIANS IN THOUSANDS!!
      It is not only some poor propaganda....

      ABOUT YOUR: "dealing with even attempts at terror and with acts of extreme incitement"...well you gave 2 links... The USUAL PRACTICE IT THIS:
      1.Israel police brutality remains unchecked 14 years after massacre of Palestinian citizens
      http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-police-brutality-remains-unchecked-14-years-after-massacre-palestinian-citizens/13923
      2.Israel turns blind eye to racist state-employed rabbis
      http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-turns-blind-eye-racist-state-employed-rabbis/9134
      3.“IDF must learn from the Syrians how to slaughter the enemy,” says prominent Israeli rabbi
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/idf-must-learn-syrians-how-slaughter-enemy-says-prominent-israeli-rabbi
      4.Ban Arabs from driving cars, prominent Israeli rabbi urges
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/ban-arabs-driving-cars-prominent-israeli-rabbi-urges
      5.At officially sponsored meeting, Israel’s racist rabbis say ethnic cleansing working, call for more
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/officially-sponsored-meeting-israels-racist-rabbis-say-ethnic-cleansing-working
      6.Rabbi who called for slaughter of a million Palestinians is to supervise Israel’s ‘Red Cross’
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/rabbi-who-called-slaughter-million-palestinians-supervise-israels-red-cross
      7.Why are Orthodox rabbis edging into Israel’s apartheid politics?
      http://electronicintifada.net/content/why-are-orthodox-rabbis-edging-israels-apartheid-politics/14078
      8.Settler jailed for kidnapping Palestinian teen
      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=373188
      9.A Jewish settler was sentenced Sunday to 18 months in prison for the kidnap, assault and battery of a 15-year-old Palestinian boy over three years ago- ONLY 18 MONTHS!!! Guess how much a Palestinian would get?! for throwing stones they get 10 yrs!
      10.Man says Israeli settlers attempted to kidnap his 4-year-old son
      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=748466
      So far in 2014, there have been at least 313 incidents of settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
      11.Witnesses: Settlers try to kidnap 11-year-old Jerusalem boy
      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=729713

      Read about IDF that stands and just watch what settlers are doing to Palestinians!
      EVEN:
      1.'Undercover Israeli combatants threw stones at IDF soldiers in West Bank'
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/undercover-israeli-combatants-threw-stones-at-idf-soldiers-in-west-bank-1.428584
      2.Commander admits: Undercover Israeli officers threw stones at soldiers in Bil'in
      http://972mag.com/commander-admits-undercover-israeli-officers-threw-stones-at-soldiers-in-bilin/44802/
      3."Price Tag" Escalation Timeline: Jan 1, 2011 - present
      http://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=1077#.VLBK0Mz_M5Y

      Other issue:
      1.Israeli Arabs more likely to be convicted for crimes than their Jewish counterparts, study shows
      Study commissioned by Israel's Courts administration and Israel Bar Association finds that 48.3 percent of Arabs receive custodial sentences for certain crimes, compared to 33.6 percent of Jews
      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-arabs-more-likely-to-be-convicted-for-crimes-than-their-jewish-counterparts-study-shows-1.376521
      2.Since Israeli civil law does not apply to the West Bank, Israeli settlers in the area are theoretically subject to martial law. In practice, they are generally judged in civil courts in Israel within the Green Line and Palestinians are subject to a separate legal system. The arrangement has been described as "de facto segregation" by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination- Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2012 (parahgraph 24).

      Separate Legal Systems for Jewish-Israeli Settlers and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
      http://www.badil.org/en/youth-education-a-activation-project/item/1695-art7

      3.Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, A/HRC/12/48, 25 September 2009, para 85
      85. Little if any action is taken by Israeli authorities to investigate, prosecute and punish violence against Palestinians by settlers and members of security forces, including killings, resulting in a situation of impunity. The Mission concludes that Israel has failed to fulfil its obligations to protect the Palestinians from violence by private individuals under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/25184E52D3E5CDBA8525763200532E73
      4.Unprotected: Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians and their property
      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/665317F0F18D199B852575230075076D
      5.Yesh Din: "Law Enforcement upon Israeli Civilians in the West Bank, Semblance of Law". Yesh Din. 2006
      or:
      "Yesh Din report: Only 8% of Palestinian complaints against settlers result in indictment". Haaretz. 2008-11-03.
      Report: 90% probes into attacks against Palestinians close with no indictment
      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3565876,00.html

      And these are old reports- see the new ones!!

      Don't use separate examples, which do not represent the usual practice of the occupying force as a base for your argument! Read all those reports by OCHAoPT or Badil, Adalah and other organisations on how Israel deals with those issues....

      Little digression here:
      Israel won’t recognize 1915 as Armenian Genocide: Israeli ambassador to Baku
      http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/israel-wont-recognize-1915-as-armenian-genocide-israeli-ambassador-to-baku.aspx?pageID=238&nID=76711&NewsCatID=359

    • Those “ancient” borders of yours… are the ones that no archaeologist CAN'T agree upon...

    • The increasing politics of “islamization” since 2009 and 2010 has been the effect of the Hamas' government efforts to hold and reinforce their legitimacy and control over the public sphere in the face of criticism from the Salafi groups(Ibrahim Qannan. “New Gaza Salafist faction numbers 11,000.” Ma'an News Agency and Radical Islam in Gaza.” Crisis Group Middle East Report N°104). Since 2007 Hamas has competed and even collided with what was labeled as “takfiri groups”. To maintain its ideological influence Hamas tries to hold control over mosques. A fine example is the clash between Jund Ansar Allah, which in August 14 2009 in Rafah declared an Islamic “emirate”. Salafists do not constitute a homogeneous group, but they are quite united in opposition to Hamas. Some of them even liaise with Fatah members, since they represent intelligentsia, the elite and see themselves as better affiliated with Fatah, and therefore consider Mahmoud Abbas to be the legitimate president of the Palestinian Autonomy (The Real Thing: An Extreme Movement That Makes Hamas Look Mild in Comparison.” The Economist).Also Jaljalat constitute unstructured networks, whose presence in Gaza is apparent since the mid-2000.As we can see Hamas is seriously involved in keeping Jaljalat and other groups at bay, thus their primarily task is to maintain order and law obedience. This shift (but not opposition) in policy from reform to maintaining “Islamic” social order has been more evident since the Operation Cast Lead and since Salafists recognized their chance to challenge Hamas. As prof. Yezid Sayigh states Hamas is acting within a secular law system since it has taken control over Gaza Strip and has not tried to change the nature of the legislative system to a more Islamic one (Yezid Sayigh. “We Serve the People” Hamas Policing in Gaza.”)
      Hamas though has difficulties to overcome the existing tensions that emerged by joining together two types of authority: the popular public one and the one built on Palestinian Islamic tradition. With the internal and external pressures Hamas has to underline their ideological stance in practice, so it can be seen as a strong party, capable of bringing order. Use of force is seen as imperative to bring and preserve that order, which is met of course with definite public opposition, especially by various youth groups like the Nida Al-Watan or Sharek Youth Forum. The strong public pressure is probably the primary force that pushed Hamas and Fatah into reconciliation talks. Hamas is not deaf to public opinions and moods, it does not see its authority derived from any divine power. Its policy which is a mixture of Islamic tradition and popular legitimacy can be engaged in talks with other powers, the only thing that is needed is for those powers to have a will to include Hamas as a legitimate force (that won the democratic elections) in those talks.

      About that "summer war" I replied: link to mondoweiss.net

      About Khaled Meshal speech:http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/caroline-palestinian-refugees#comment-732791
      A must read about talks with Hamas, etc. http://www.jeromeslater.com/2012/12/what-to-make-of-khaled-meshal.html and http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22373/just_war_moral_philosophy_and_the_200809_israeli_campaign_in_gaza.html

      More in rest of the comments.

      That is why Israel not only should but must talk to Hamas, and stop clinging to the old anti-Hamas propaganda. Hamas is a dynamic movement and party that can be reasoned with. Israel from the VERY BEGINNING has denied the Palestinian people their right to have a state and even recently Netanyahu said it time and again and not only that- Israel continues to take more land and build more settlements to make this true! And yet you say that's because old and unused Hamas' Charter (not their actual political practice) Israel shouldn't talk to! On that basis Palestinians should never talk to Israel! So your argument considering Hamas actually makes no sense, and is just the same old, same old excuse not to talk with a party that must be talked to if Israel is serious about peace with Palestinians in the first place! Palestinians talk to Likud (despite their policy) and other parties despite their political narration about the peace process and actual doings in the occupied territory!

      About Hamas (books, and other info): http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/caroline-palestinian-refugees#comment-732671

    • Something about Hamas:
      Hamas has a loosely defined political theory which implemented in practice does not obviously mirror its ideal representation and fulfilment. I will not focus my attention on the Hamas'Charter since many researchers, for example Jeroen Gunning or Azzam Tamimi, argue it was written by the “old guard”. Very few Hamas' leaders and ordinary members have even referred to the Charter as a source of any argument and for the time being the Charter does not represent the views of the present leadership (THERE ARE LINKS BELOW THAT REFER TO THAT ISSUE THOUGH). Hamas from its beginning has been a grass-root movement and therefore its TEXTS tend to be more of MOMENTARY snapshots and abstracts that DO NOT represent Hamas' complexity. Hamas' political structure is divided between state and non-state actors, local leaders, all of whom function under the reality of the Israeli occupation. During most of the 90's Hamas was dominated by internal debates concerning their future, which limited their decisive actions. Moreover, the organisation shifted closer to the left, which indicated their practical approach to practising politics (Mishal and Sela, The Palestinian Hamas). When Fatah and PLO struggled with bribery, Hamas was seen as an honest and fair organisation, independent from Western help.
      Their 2005 electoral platform addresses eighteen various subjects, which with the exception of two represent what we can call secular discourse. “Our Essential Principles” and “Religious Guidance and Preaching” cover more technical details, such as mosque upkeep, what we could consider as ideological Islamist rhetoric. It contains specific political proposals and deals with the following subjects:
      1. A Palestinian State with the Right of Return;
      2. Governmental Reform;
      3. National Unity;
      4. Democratic Rights; and
      5. Domestic Development.
      The draft program for a coalition government shows Hamas' effort to create a coalition government that will consist of various Palestinian factions.
      Manifesto:
      1. To join the PLO;
      2. To deal responsibly with previous agreements; and
      3. At least temporarily to endorse the two-state solution.
      Cabinet Platform program was delivered during the Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh speech, which represented a draft of Hamas' governing agenda. It also contains very few religious references and it lacks any militant discourse. The Cabinet Platform presents three new objectives:
      1. To respect the Presidency, the Constitutional Order and the PLO;
      2. To cooperate with Israel in “all mundane affairs”, and
      3. To pursue “all avenues” of achieving peace with the Quartet.

    • How are then the Palestinians to understand their history which both helped to create their institutions (like the Oslo Accords) and also compromised their national aspirations. Almost any approach of their history would touch intense domestic and international controversy. The distant past is used to serve national needs, religious and national identities are implemented and reinforced, since their first curriculum puts the emphasis on nationalism. Given the opportunity to write a comprehensive curriculum for the first time, the authors inserted national symbols in every conceivable location and illustration.

      In autumn of 2013. Hamas introduced its own textbooks for grades eight, nine and ten. Unfortunately, except for few articles in the press, there is no appropriate analysis of these textbooks. From some articles we can distinguish several main points.
      Textbooks express Palestinian national identity, focusing on Arab and Islamic influences. Journalist present at one of the lessons in Gaza describes that the students were asked about 1929. They responded that Al-Buraq is owned by a Muslim waqf, which the report of the British commission of inquiry from 1930 confirms.
      The reference to these events allowed the teacher to ask another question, about whether students boycott Israeli goods, just as it happened in 1929 with Jewish products (Jews also- even before that date boycotted Arab goods).
      The boycott of Israeli goods is a traditional, peaceful form of resistance against the occupying forces, which for the last few years is part of the international movement aimed at forcing Israel to end the occupation.
      New textbooks provide other methods of fighting against the occupier. One chapter describes armed resistance. While Israel has given its recent military operations names referring to biblical tradition, Hamas presented its own terminology.
      According to some accounts Zionism is described as a racist movement, which aims to expel Arabs from their own land. The first three chapters focus on the pre-1948 Palestine, and describe among other things Palestinian greatest centers of that period.
      Hamas considers as non-negotiable the Palestinian right to return to their lands and the establishment of Jerusalem as the future capital of the state. Hamas has also added new curricula, such as military training (Israel has the same).
      According to one article a student expressed concern that textbooks can enlarge divisions among Palestinians (since there is more focus on Hamas' political leaders, etc). They omit for example the Oslo agreement (negotiated by the PLO) or evaluate them negatively (which is how generaly historians evaluate it anyway). On the other hand, many of the students were satisfied with the new textbooks.They explained that after the bombing of the Islamic University by Israel (Israel's accusations that it was used for military purposes was not confirmed the UN mission), and after the destruction of objects close to them,they treat those books as a form of resistance and a symbol of their steadfastness.
      Another student appreciated that these books are not limited only to the narrative of the Palestinian West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but also they link their history to their heritage in historic Palestine. One of the teachers said that they are highly politicized textbooks. He adds that they focus on nationalism and national identity. Schools managed by the UN do not introduce new textbooks.
      READ:
      1.N.J. Brown, Palestinian Politics After the Oslo or his: Democracy, History, and the Contest Over the Palestinian Curriculum
      2.Analysis and Evaluation of the New Palestinian Curriculum. Reviewing Palestinian Textbooks and Tolerance Education Program Grades 4 & 9, Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information IPCRI and other parts...
      3.S. Nicolai, Fragmented foundations: education and chronic crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Institite for Educational Planning
      4.J. Bernard, J. Maitre, Studies on Palestinian Curriculum and Textbooks, UNESCO
      5.A.D. Pina, Palestinian Education and the Debate Over Textbooks, CRS Report for Congress

      Israeli textbooks...Actually israeli textbooks leave much to be desired when it comes to presenting others, etc. So don't go just talking about Palestinian textbooks!
      1.“Victims of Our Own Narratives?”. Portrayal of the “Other” in Israeli and Palestinian School Books”, Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land 2013
      2.Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish Society, by Daniel Bar-Tal and Yona Teichman.
      3.4.Bar-Tal D., & Schnell I. (Eds.) (2012). The Impacts of Lasting Occupation: Lessons from Israeli Society
      4. Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education, by Nurit Peled-Elhanan

    • Generally textbooks refer to Palestine with the West Bank and Gaza Strip distinguished from Israel, which isn't named, but so aren't the neighbor states. Border, topographic or demographic maps are mostly labeled as Historical Palestine. It is meant to preserve the memory of places in historical Palestine, especially cities with Israeli Arab populations, which are perceived as a legacy of all Palestinian people. As far as the modern history is concerned the schoolbooks don't cover the unresolved political issues, which are part of each side's strategic plans. That is why the territory of the state of Israel is shown without any label, and there is no reference to Palestine made either, which is explained that Israel itself has not yet marked its borders and no final agreement has been reached with the PLO.

      The most attention however is given not to the issue of how the Palestinian identity is presented in their textbooks but to their view of other, especially Jews, and what's more the evaluation of the way of presenting their national identity is based on that specific view. The Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace research show that Jews, Judaism, and Israel are hardly mentioned in PA textbooks and Zionism is presented as a colonial movement and as a danger to Palestinians. Nathan J. Brown points out that most PA textbooks aim to avoid saying anything about Israel and the few exceptions are not pejorative. Generally Palestinian textbook references to Israel and Israelis usually are drawn from official historical documents and from encyclopedias. State of Israel is mentioned inadequately in Palestinian textbooks, and its commonly associated with historical events (such as the Oslo Accord) or ethnicity (as a Jewish state). Professor Brown concluded that anti-Jewish incitement does not occur. Some note that Israel is implicitly referred to in non-specific terms such as the Land outside the Green Line, the land of 1948, or the interior. Towns with large Arab populations that lie within pre-1967 Israeli territory are sometimes termed Historical Palestine in many PA textbooks. Jews are placed among Peoples of the Book. Some experts reports show that Zionists and Zionism are portrayed in a negative light. Generally, Israel, Israelis, Zionism and Zionists are depicted as occupiers, invaders, aggressors, infiltrators, and oppressors. Israel, as a sovereign state, is presented only with reference to the Oslo Accords and other agreements. Holy sites in Palestine do not include those of Jews except for ones that are holy to both Muslims and Jews (Al-Buraq Wall, Al-Haram al-Ibrahimi as-Shareef, Jacob’s Well and Joseph’s Tomb).
      As it can be seen Palestinian schoolbooks present generally positive content, showing however gaps and understatements that occur because of the political problems that aren't yet resolved, but there are any direct hostile approaches found. Schoolbooks focus on the emphasizing the Palestinian character of their legacy of the past for the sake of future generations. But the CMIP reports keep charging the Palestinian textbooks of incitement and promoting hatred toward Jews and Israel. As professor Nathan J. Brown and other institutions in the field point out that any mention of a Palestinian character, for instance, of Jerusalem was seen by the Center as questioning the Israeli/Jewish nature of the city. Questioning Israeli annexation, which by international law is viewed as illegal, is natural since Jerusalem is designated as a mater for future final negotiations. Moreover the CIMP fail to report that all mentions of locations in Jerusalem refer to Old City and few Palestinian neighborhoods.
      The Center often base on Palestinian schoolbook maps as an absolut proof for the violent character of the curriculum. For instance topographical maps of Palestine which avoid determining borders are seen as anti-Israeli. It was so because the main task was to find the place of certain coordinates, and didn't demand any border lines. So the books omit not only the borders of Palestine and Israel but also other countries as well. There are however maps that delineate the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but don't explain what they signify. Maps of cities show the existence with a significant Palestinian population before and after 1948 border lines. A unit on tolerance is criticized for omitting Jews, regardless the fact that entire unit is dedicated to tolerance within Palestinian society. ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam who is mentioned in texts as a Palestinian national hero is seen by the Center’s report as a terrorist who fought the British and Jews. Palestinian texts mention him only as a martyr in the struggle against British imperialism, not in endorsement of suicide attacks. As professor Brown point out, the Center’s logic could be used to cite any Israeli textbook mentioning Yitzhak Shamir as encouraging massacres of Palestinians and political assassinations of British and UN officials.

    • Jerusalem is presented as the capital of the future state. It is described as Palestinian city, built by Arab Canaanites and named Jebus and which later was called: Urushalim, City of Justice, or Noble Jerusalem. The predominant name is al-Quds. Whole Jerusalem is mentioned only in historical context, some schoolbooks exclude West Jerusalem, and the claim is made only for East Jerusalem. Geographical maps show generally all historical Palestine, however administrative maps show the West Bank and Gaza.
      As geography and maps are concerned, they are presented in great detail in different context across the schoolbooks. Historical Palestine is reflected as geographic entity in most cases and it doesn't include detailed borders. Regional maps show Palestine as part of the Arab world, and in isolation, with no label included. Maps are used for multiple purposes, like to situate Palestine with reference to Arab or Islamic context, for identifying directions, locating cities - which is essential - in historical Palestine. Administrative maps include the boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some of them also show names of cities that were predominantly inhabited by Arabs before the establishment of the State of Israel. Political geography yet still includes some gaps, especially when it refers to State of Israel as a geographical and political entity. This fact is interpreted by Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace as a form of incitement, since the state of Israel is not labeled in any textbook map and Palestine is covering the territory of Israel as well in many cases. It can be explained that historical and topographical maps are used to avoid drawing political boundaries, Israel is not represented as aren't Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, and what is important some maps clearly delineate the West Bank and Gaza but do not explain what these indications signify. This action is intended not to move beyond a clear national consensus or its explicit policy. Such an attitude show that there is no guidance on how to teach Israel, or the borders of Paletine.

    • Palestinian textbooks focused on the themes of identity and values. It was found that the curriculum has a noticeable positive impact on students since they are studying their history and are being secured in their identity as Palestinians and citizens of the Palestinian Authority and their future state, moreover students have a strong sense of identity anchored in being a member of a Palestinian family, with strong values based on Islamic and Christian beliefs, which includes tolerance, faith in God, etc. However the topic of identity wasn't an explicit issue of any observed lessons. Identity is expressed for example by reading poems, references to Palestine in Geography, English or Mathematics. The land is equaled to their identity. For this reason students see the basis of the conflict in land and therefore they defend their country and struggle against the occupation. Their identity is a mean against the daily humiliations they endure, but they don't perceive themselves as hopeless, they rather are fully aware of their suffering, oppression caused by the occupation. That is also why they strongly bound their Palestinian identity to desire for freedom. Moreover the Islamic and Arabic culture are also strongly viewed as the ones that help them define what makes them Palestinian. Those elements help them to understand their culture and show how to develop and build a future society. It is worth noticing that parents are somewhat criticizing some existing gaps in history or geography, they wish it would be more detailed about history of Palestine and of 1948 year, focus on the current situation under occupation and also on the grave refugee problem along with displacement, illegal settlement and border problem.The focus on the Arab nature of geography and ethnic dimensions of Palestinian identity is not based on any hostile denial of other interpretations of history. Alternative versions are ignored not refuted. Non-Arab populations receive almost no attention. The historical selectivity is aiming at building a strictly Palestinian national identity. Since modern and contemporary history carries lot of controversies for both Palestinians and Israelis, they are not described in detail, which is seen outside of the Palestinian Authority as an unusual approach. That is so, probably because any approach to those historical cases, not following the official Israeli interpretation of facts (for instance almost total responsibility for the refugee problem lays on the Arab side, etc.) is followed by accusation of subjective than false approach, hence the little attention is given to these vital events.Crucial history cases will probably be covered when an independent Palestinian state will be created, when borders and the question of Holy Places will become clear, and an historical approach will be possible to be conducted, with no threat of external influences demanding a specific political interpretation.

    • EDUCATION:

      Since the first Palestinian curriculum the content is devoted to national identity, rather than to historical detailed facts, etc. Its core contents are defined by national values, Islamic religion, national heritage, customs and traditions and the Declaration of Independence. It includes subject on civic and national education, technology, home economics, health and environment, all of which will support Palestinian people to build and develop their national home.
      However much external criticism of the new curriculum has been focused on how peaceful or not are the new schoolbooks, rather than typical curricula concerns, and it received widespread attention outside the Palestinian Authority. UNESCO and other institutions in the education field, state that it seems that virtually all the charges of incitement can be traced back to one group, the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace-CMIP (it changed its name to Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance). The Institute is a non-profit organization, which was established in 1998. It specializes in research of school textbooks, teacher's guides and curricula used in the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran. Its first director (1998-2000) was Itamar Marcus an Israeli counter terrorism analyst and the founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch. He was appointed by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to a joint committee with the Palestinians on incitement. He lives in an Israeli settlement Efrat in the West Bank. Marcus previously lobbied to keep West Bank aquifers under Israeli control. Professor Nathan Brown, a noted professor at the George Washington University, who served as an adviser to the PA Constitutional assembly and other critics of the Institute charge that it is overly critical and even anti-Palestinian. Analysts such as Avenstup and Moughrabi have found the arguments used by CMIP to be inaccurate and characterized by questionable interpretations of text. But yet as professor Brown points out almost every discussion in English on Palestinian textbooks is based on CMIP reports, which are widely circulated and cited, and persistently charge them of incitement. Policy-makers have officially used its allegations. They managed to release a negative report on the newest PA schoolbooks at a press conference in Washington in 2007. The implications of these allegations have been tremendous. As a direct result donors have sometimes shifted funding away from curriculum development and schoolbook productions.

      TO READ ABOUT PALESTINIAN TEXTBOOKS BETTER TRY: The Israeli Palestine Education Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), The Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research, Project on Israeli-Palestinian Textbooks, and books of noted scholar professor Nathan J. Brown.

    • And what's with that Palestinian Mandate was for Jews meme?? In the Mandatory text and in the reports made by the British Mandatory power, Palestine was regarded as a territorial unit, set apart from others. Besides the Ottoman citizens who are considered Palestinians or who can apply for Palestinian citizenship in line with international law on the succession of states, Palestinian citizenship can be acquired by birth, naturalisation, marriage, or permission. SO ARABS IN PALESTINE WHO WERE OTTOMAN CITIZENS WERE PALESTINIANS IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! LOCAL JEWS TOO. THE PROBLEM WAS: WHAT TO DO WITH JEWISH IMMIGRANTS THAT WEREN'T OTTOMAN CITIZENS?? AND HERE THE FUN BEGINS:

      Palestinian citizenship under the British Mandate:

      During the transition period national certificates and passports for Ottoman residents of Palestine were established. Three conditions were to be met in order to obtain Palestinian citizenship: had to be born in Palestine, or to show that the father is Palestinian (women received citizenship of her husband or father). One could apply for citizenship when expressed the intention to remain permanently in Palestine. What was needed was also a document allowing to live in Palestine. Residents were free to leave Palestine with a passport. The process of issuing passports began in August 1920. And they were valid for the duration of a particular journey. In practice,the concept of a Palestinian nationality was used despite the lack of appropriate legal regulations. British administration often defined the events and situations involving the territory administered by them (even unofficially) as Palestinian. "White Paper", June 23, 1922 confirmed the status of all citizens as citizens of the Palestinian Mandate and no group had other legal status (although de jure they were still Ottoman citizens).

      Besides Article 7 of the Mandate, a definition of Palestinian nationality can be found in two key Orders—Palestine Order in Council (Constitution) and Legislative Election Order—and other lower-level legislation.

      The Palestine Order in Council was, both substantively and administratively, regarded as a constitution.The Constitution provided a functional definition of the term ‘foreigner’. Article 59, paragraph 1, defined a ‘foreigner’ as “any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include: (i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State, (ii) Ottoman subjects, (iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality”. This definition confirmed that the inhabitants of Palestine were still Ottoman citizens but protected by a European state (i.e. Britain).

      The Election Order defined the term ‘Palestinian citizens’. Article 2 stipulated that “the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens... Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order”. Although it was provided for the purpose of the legislative election, this definition had in fact established the future status of those individuals who would henceforth beregarded as Palestinian nationals (“Turkish subjects habitually resident in Palestine”). Thus, as some rightly observed, this definition constituted a practical amendment to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 1869.

      Although the Palestine Mandate authorized Britain to pass a law on Palestinian nationality, the enactment of such a law was delayed for three years. This late enactment was questioned at the international level. In 1922, the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations asked Britain, inter alia, whether it had enacted a nationality law. The Commission also enquired as to whether that law had been framed in such a way as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews, whose permanent residence in Palestine was in accordance with Article 7 of the Mandate. It seems that Britain preferred to wait until it had first acquired a full legal basis for its presence in the country by concluding a peace agreement with Turkey, the legitimate sovereign over Palestine.

      The British-run Government of Palestine naturalized certain groups of foreign residents in the country to enable them to participate in the legislative election in accordance with the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council of 1922.These residents were mostly immigrants Jews.

      Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 (BELOW) of the Treaty of Lausanne: ‘Palestine’ was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne, let alone Palestinian nationality. However, there was no need to mention these terms because the Treaty provided generic provisions applicable to all territories detached from Turkey, including Palestine. This 1923 Treaty differed from the draft Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which introduced a separate regime for each ex-Turkish territory, with special reference to Palestinian nationality in Article 129. Instead, a similar clause to the latter article was embodied, as already detailed, in Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate. Therefore, with regard to Palestinian nationality, the Mandate and the Treaty of Lausanne complemented each other.

      To qualify for Palestinian nationality in virtue of 30 Article, the individual had to meet two conditions. He or she should first be a Turkish citizen, or subject.Secondly, such a person had to be habitually resident (‘établis’, or established, in the authentic French version) in Palestine as of 6 August 1924, the day on whichthe Treaty of Lausanne came into being. In other words, residents in Palestine who had no Ottoman nationality (i.e. foreign citizens or stateless persons) had no right to become Palestinian citizens. Similarly, Ottoman citizens residing outside Palestine on the above date were not deemed to be Palestinians. An exception to the latter provision applied to those individuals who were born in Palestine and fell under Article 34 of the Treaty.

      Palestinian nationality was regulated by the Treaty of Lausanne in a similar way to how the nationalities of other mandated-territories in the Middle East were regulated. The Treaty confirmed the previous practice whereby the inhabitants of Palestine were effectively regarded as Palestinians. To be sure, most of the nationality rules of the Treaty were later embodied in the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and became part of the country’s legal system. The Treaty of Lausanne, including its nationality rules, remained legally binding and effectively applicable throughout the mandate period (until 14 May 1948)

      The “Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925”, as it is officially called, was
      enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925 and came into force on 1 August 1925. The 1925 Citizenship Order constituted the ‘nationality law’ of Palestine,
      which was referred to in Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate.

      With regard to the terminology, it was argued that the Order favoured the term ‘citizenship’ over ‘nationality’, as it constituted a “fundamental difference which exists in many Oriental countries between allegiance to the state, which is citizenship, and membership of a nationality within the state, which is a matter of race or religion”. But, while it is true that the Citizenship Order used the term ‘citizenship’ in most of its articles, the term ‘nationality’ was also utilized for the same purpose. Employing both terms was consistent with Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate, which used the two terms synonymously. Moreover, as it has been evident in several cases, Palestinian courts did not make a clear distinction between both terms.

      The British government admitted that representatives of the Zionist movement were consulted in “the Draft Palestine Citizenship Order in Council”; thus naturalization of Jews was facilitated through the provisions of the Order. At the same time, Britain found itself bound to regulate the inhabitants’ nationality, pursuant to the international law of state succession, as laid down in Articles 30-36 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

      This is what Article 1, Clause (1), of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order
      declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. YOU READ: Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. To qualify for Palestinian nationality in accordance with the above-quoted clause, the person was required to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. The legal meaning of ‘Turkish’ and ‘habitually resident’ cannot be defined in the abstract, especially as court rulings had already interpreted both terms, as reflected in the Treaty of Lausanne, in other areas outside Palestine. Accordingly, the person was required to be first, and foremost, a Turkish citizen. A foreigner, regardless of his or her length of residence in Palestine before 1925, had no right to acquire Palestinian nationality under Article 1, Clause (1), of the Order.

      ALL THIS IN:THE INTERNATIONAL LAW FOUNDATIONS OF PALESTINIAN NATIONALITY. A Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality under the British Rule.

      British even "helped" Ottoman-Palestinians obtain other citizenships (and thus to relinquish their Ottoman, then Palestinian, citizenship). In other words, British Mandate citizenship laws tried to crystallize new Palestinian citizenship-based community, but contributed to the dispersion of Palestinian national identity!!!! HERE YOU HAVE YOUR ARTIFITIAL POLITICAL AND LEGAL MANUVERS CONCERNING THE PROBLEM OF ZIONISTS PLAN TO SETTLE IN PALESTINE... SO PALESTINIAN ARABS (AND LOCAL JEWS) WERE SEEN AS PALESTINIANS...NOT ONLY JEWS!!! WERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA?!
      Amended by Palestinian Nationality Order (Amendment) of 1931 providing that those Ottoman citizens who did not normally reside in Palestine on the 1 August 1925 (Citizenship Order came into force), but who were usually resident in Palestine on the 6 August 1924 (Lausanne Convention came into force, where Palestine was officially detached from Ottoman Empire) are deemed Palestinians unless, by the date the 1931 Amendment Order came into force, they have obtained another citizenship. However, in successive amendment (Palestinian Nationality Order (Amendment) 1939), a second paragraph was added to the original Article 2 of the Citizenship Law, providing that those who satisfy previous provisions, but who had obtained another citizenship and kept personal constant connections with Palestine may apply for Palestinian citizenship which the Palestinian government has the power to accept or reject. A consolidated version of all Palestinian Nationality Orders of 1925–1941 was endorsed in 1944.

      By birth (Arts. 3–6): those meeting any of the following conditions are considered Palestinians:
      • born in Palestine from a legitimate marriage where the father was, by then, Palestinian
      • born outside Palestine from a legitimate marriage where the father was Palestinian or naturalized Palestine and was present in Palestine on the date of birth of the child
      • born in Palestine to a legitimate/illegitimate marriage and did not obtain another nationality.

      By naturalisation (Arts. 7–11): any person who is a naturalised Palestinian enjoys the same rights and duties as Palestinian citizens. The High Commissioner may issue a naturalisation certificate if there is proof that the applicant:
      • has lived in Palestine for at least two to three years prior to applying to be naturalised;
      • is of good moral standing and has a sufficient knowledge of one of the three official Mandate languages, English, Arabic or Hebrew.
      • intends to reside in Palestine if their application is accepted.
      There is, however, the High Commissioner is not under obligation to grant a naturalisation certificate on presentation of proof of having met the conditions imposed by law. He does not need to justify his refusal and his decision is final.

      By marriage (Arts. 12–13): The general rule is that the wife of a Palestinian is considered Palestinian, and the wife of foreigner is considered a foreigner, in line with Article 6 that stipulates that the wife takes the citizenship of the husband. This general rule should, however, be read in the light of the following:
      The foreign woman who marries a Palestinian before 25 July 1939 (entry in force of the Palestinian Nationality Order (Amendment) of 1939), becomes Palestinian. After that date, the High Commissioner may provide a naturalisation certificate upon request.

      By permission (Arts. 12(6), 14).

      To sum up: citizens of Palestine were Arabs and local Jews. Special legal procedures had to be implemented to make the Jewish immigrants citizens (since they weren't Ottoman citizens,etc). The British even prevented real Palestinians (born in Palestine, etc) from formally obtaining the citizenship- like in the case of a Palestinian who had gone beyond the boundaries of Turkey (for business or trip) at that time (M. Qafisheh, The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality)

      So again, you were wrong.

      M. Qafisheh, The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality
      Asem Khalil, Palestinian Nationality and Citizenship.

    • When it comes to that UN Israel "Jewish state" thing of yours....
      Well, for starters read: The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel, by J.R. Hammond.
      UN partition plan envisioned that there would be a Palestinian Arab majority in the "Jewish" part (Arabs=509.780, Jews= 499.020 in Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. Report of Sub-Committee 2: unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf on page 41)- Zionists knew that very well... Palestinian support for the partition wouldn't change much regarding Zionist political strategy... Plus, right after the vote Jews attacked Palestinian villages and people. Gurion even ordered to attack the villages that signed a non-aggression pact- he wanted to provoke Palestinians to fight (in Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel).

    • Why would you even base an "ideal" state with borders based on some inconsistent historical myths and symbols ignoring contemporary situations? Since when more land=more safety?
      You forgot already?: A report co-authored by senior Israeli defense officials argues that Israel doesn't need to control West Bank territory to keep Israel secure:
      This idea that Israel needs to control large swathes of territory in the West Bank in order to protect itself -- which is described as "territorial strategic depth" in the Security chapter of "Is Peace Possible?" -- has been most prominently advocated by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, run by Netanyahu advisor Dore Gold, in a report entitled "Israel's Critical Security Requirements for Defensible Borders." Its authors have made numerous trips to Washington to propagate their perspective (particularly on Capitol Hill), and their arguments have gone largely unaddressed.
      This void is filled by a new report by the Council for Peace and Security, an Israeli organization that includes over a thousand former high-ranking officials in Israel's national security establishment, including the Israel Defense Forces, the Mossad, and Shin Beth security services. The group provides a sober alternative (with unimpeachable security credentials) to those who seek to use security arguments to justify political goals -- particularly goals that are incompatible with a two-state solution. Their new report, "Defensible Borders and Strategic Depth,"is written by three former major generals and three brigadier generals.
      The paper cuts to the heart of the argument made by Netanyahu and his surrogates about defensible borders... The report points out that the Israeli need for control of the Jordan Valley is based on an outdated assessment of Israeli threats...They also explain about how the regional assessment has changed due to the Arab Peace Initiative and Israel's undisputed military advantage in the region.- READ ABOUT MORE YOUSELF.

      So all your arguments are based on myths, symbols, lack of knowledge, etc.

      You write about maximalist visions of Palestinians? And what are those? in addition to the borders (as Talknic wrote about many times) that allegedly Israel officially agreed on Israel took additional 12% - ILLEGALLY. The same in 1967 and till this day they continue to build more illegal settlements. You even add some biblical visions of the borders and you dare talk about the maximalist visions of Palestinians?
      How can you be taken seriously?

    • Those "ancient" borders of yours... are the ones that no archaeologist can agree upon. Even they don't agree: if there was a big united kingdom, where its borders really went, how far, etc. All we have now are theories... Every one, even the biblical maximalists admit they don't have proof that there was an exodus, or that David or Solomon existed (they weren't Jews by the way), or that the Wall is actually THE Wall!! It is one of the examples of appropriating Muslim traditions by Jews and later Zionists... That is why every year we have big hurrah that some archaeologist found sth that will prove sth, but at the end others come along and verify it...
      1.Friedman R.E., Who Wrote the Bible?, HarperOne, 1987
      2.Friedman R.E., The Bible with Sources Revealed, HarperOne, 2005
      3.Finkelstein I., The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, Society of Biblical Literature, 2007
      4.Finkelstein I., Silberman Z.A., David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, Free Press, 2007
      5.Garaudy R., The Founding Myths of Modern Israel, Inst for Historical Review, 2000
      6.Silberman N.A., Finkelstein I., The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Touchstone, 2002
      7.Whitelam,The Invention of Ancient Israel
      8.The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
      9.The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
      10.Stories from Ancient Canaan, Second Edition
      11.E.L. Martin, The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, Academy for Scriptural, Portland 1994.

      Not to mention the problem that you so freely just link Jews from Palestine to those from all over the world (especially Europe). We all know how Zionist used even genetic studies to prove they have connections but those projects also connected not-Jews (depending who they choose as a Jews for reference) to that region... so those projects are no help for the Zionists whatsoever....Zionists use only Jewish tradition (well to be more specific the image what that traditions is from their own perspective... Jews from Ethiopia or even Jews from Middle East had/have other visions of it- read about it) to link them to the ancient history of the land- TYPICAL NATIONALIST DISCOURSE...

      In "The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics" or in Falk, "Zionism, Race and Eugenics" you can read about all that. Also: "There is no biological marker that is unique to Jewish people," Raphael Falk, professor emeritus of genetics at Hebrew University. "There are no markers that can define an individual, man or woman, as a Jew or as belonging to any other community." In: "Zionism and the Biology of the Jews".
      Genetic studies are often used for the purposes of israeli nationalist narrative. Their aim is to clarify who can refer to a specific cultural heritage. In this context, race, ethnicity and nation are interconnected.
      Genetic studies are sometimes highly controversial and the subject of academic and political debate. Tsvi Misinai finances genetic testing to prove that the Palestinians are actually descendants of the ancient Israelites. According to him, it will help to accept Palestinians as equal citizens of Israel.
      Misinai believes that Palestinians have a false "Arab" identity. Moreover, many Palestinians are not aware of their "Jewish" origin. Misinai thus supports the idea that Jews have the right to live in Palestine who are the descendants of its ancient inhabitants. In this form of discourse national culture is based on biology. These studies, in practice try to legitimize the Zionist historical narrative. But you can see Zionists have lots of problem with the fact that those studies confirm that Palestinians aren't "alien" as the Zionist want to see them....

      Also what was considered by Zionist as "Jewish" and "Arab" changed in time, because at first "Arab/Muslim- Palestinians" were seen as descendants of ancient peoples (for example the work by Ben Gurion and Ben Zvi, from 1918, a Yiddish book, title: Eretz Yisrael in the Past and Present). Later it changed when Palestinians didn't accept the Zionist policy and narratives. As you can see what is called "Jewish" and "Arab" is very fluid, and the same goes for ancient times- today lots of traditional narration about ancient times is now being reconsidered, basing on new evidence.

      In "The Canaanite Factor: (Un)Defining Religious Identities in Palestine and Israel": Some recent DNA studies seem to be headed toward answering such questions. One study by a group of Israeli and US scientists (Nebel et al 2000) came to the conclusion that Palestinian Arabs have close genetic similarity to Jews and that the findings agree with historical records indicating that Moslem Arabs in this country [Palestine and Israel] descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD. More recent research by the same group (2001) found Jews to be more closely related to populations in the northern Fertile Crescent.
      Another genetic study (Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al) recently caused a furor after its publication in Human Immunology. The journal took the unusual step (under pressure) of asking subscribers and libraries to disregard or preferably tear out the article. This study found that Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool ... that support a common ancient Canaanite origin. The study also hypothesized other close relatives to the Palestinians in people like Cretans, Egyptians, Iranians, Turks and Armenians. Then follows the well-meant conclusion:
      The Eurocentric confusion Arab=Muslim has also lowered the Palestinian identity by identifying the country were Mohammed was born (Saudi Arabia) with the Muslim religion; it also has artificially divided peoples both coming from ancient Canaanites (Jews and Palestinians). (Arnaiz-Villena et al 2001: 897)
      As obvious from this quotation, the published study is replete with editorial errors, and it also confusingly uses Palestinians to refer to Philistines. Nevertheless, its conclusion is important and worth pursuing in future studies.
      DNA studies have the potential to show unexpected human commonalities. But careful sampling criteria should be adopted, and efforts made to avoid historical preconceptions.

    • About Palestinian identity, history, term, etc. I wrote:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin#comment-732760
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin#comment-732844

      So you were wrong when writing about Palestinian myths in that regard. You should read about modern Zionists ones though, since you use those myth as "facts".
      1.Kimmerling B., The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society, and the Military, University of California Press, 2001
      2.Ohana D., The shaping of Israeli identity: myth, memory, and trauma, Routledge
      3.Orr A., Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, 1994
      4.Oz A., The Sabra: the creation of the new Jew, University of California Press, 2000
      5.Piterberg G., The Returns of Zionism: Myths, Politics and Scholarship in Israel, Verso, 2008
      6.Shabi R., We Look Like the Enemy: The Hidden Story of Israel's Jews from Arab Lands, Walker & Company, 2008
      7.Sternhell Z.,The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State, Princeton University Press, Nowy Jork 1999
      8.Yehuda N., Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995
      9.Yehuda N., Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada, Humanity Books, 2002
      10.Zerubavel Y., Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition, University Of Chicago Press, 1995

      And many others...

      Meron Benvenisti’s Sacred Landscape, after describing the Zionist fabrication of a “Hebrew map” intended to eradicate the Palestinian character of the landscape, gives several instances of other actions where a variety of excuses and strategies were used to Judaize sites and buildings even when they had no previous Jewish tradition associated with them at all. Such excuses were used to ensure control of a number of major sites belonging to the monotheistic
      tradition that had been preserved in Muslim sacred geography. This applies of course to El-Khalil/Hebron, at the place where tradition says Abraham and other members of his clan were buried, now a mosque called Al Haram el Ibrahımi. After the occupation of the West Bank in 1967 and then infiltration by Jewish extremists in the 1980s, supported by the Israeli army, the mosque was forcibly divided and eventually more than two-thirds of it turned into a synagogue. This in effect repeats the process of the site’s previous forced transformations. Thus, association with a name (Ibrahım/Abraham)—presumably dating back to the second millennium bce—not with a fact, was manipulated to generate a claim and so create an unwieldy kind of reality and a point of contentious attachment. That Muslims incorporated other burials into this site, such as Sarah’s, adding many exaggerated stories about Abraham well beyond the qur’anic account, does not of course explain or excuse Israeli actions. However, the religious pretext has made it easier for the Zionists to dupe and intimidate local Muslim authorities and believers into grudging acquiescence in accepting the site’s authenticity on their terms. Israeli actions to appropriate the site seem to be motivated by the intent to control through colonial presence rather than by sincere religious devotion. It is not new in history that one power would use a previous tradition to supplant that tradition itself and to exploit a site for its own uses. Nevertheless, it is ironic that the imaginings of Muslims served as pretexts for their being supplanted by Jewish extremists, for the benefit of new Israeli claims.MORE in (B. Ra'ad, Hidden Histories).

      Or: Ricca S., Heritage, Nationalism and the Shifting Symbolism of the Wailing Wall- you can download it A MUST READ!

      NEVER EVER in history the historical Palestine was inhabited only by Jews [as followers of the Jewish religion, DON'T mix that up with the name of the region Judah, that term got mixed up recently. Ioudaios ment not only Judeans and not all of the Judeans were Jews....].
      So it is wrong to say that only Jews (that is especially those actually from Palestine...)lived there until Islam "came". SINCE WHEN CHANGE OF RELIGION = CHANGE OF ETHNICITY??? INHABITANTS WEREN'T MAGICALLY REPLACED BY ARABS (YOU DO KNOW THERE WERE SEVERAL "WAVES" OF IMMIGRANTS RIGHT? ARABIC (AS ANCIENT FORM OF THE MODERN ONE)FOR EXAMPLE FUNCTIONED THERE EVEN BEFORE THAT WAVE in VII century!!
      Even the Bible say Jews didn't only live on that land... it is hardly only a Jewish "ancient land". MORE, for example: In Hebron, as elsewhere, pagan practices were hard to erase. Both contemporaneous and later writers tell us that the people continued to remember and offer pagan sacrifice for more than
      a hundred years after the Christianization of the sites. One is the eyewitness report of Sozomen, a fifth-century ecclesiastical historian and native of Gaza, which is corroborated by earlier descriptions of polytheists celebrating around a tree and a spring at Mamre given in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (B. Ra'ad, Hidden Histories).

    • I apologize in advance for a the change in the subject and for the length of comments, but they can't be short, I need to clarify the senseless things Robert wrote. Robert you wrote: "The standard caveat in the corner is just to prevent testy people like you from attacking them for any errors"- you made lots of them!
      Where to start?!
      ABOUT NATION AND NATIONALISM
      There is no such thing as an ancient nation. Nationalism as the development of the idea of a nation is modern. There are different theories about when or from where it originated but the fact is that it is a modern idea, practice, etc- it is indisputable in the academic world. Some argued that English national idea was one of the first, others that the idea originated in South America. Anthony Smith first argued that something like the modern idea of a nation can be found in ancient times, but later he changed his theory, since he admitted that he himself mixed the idea of an ethnic identity with modern national one, an idea he himself warned against. Community, ethnic group or any other group is not a nation. They can be a start for it, to develope, but nation can't be reduced to them. There are many studies about national identity development in Europe, America, Asia etc that confirm that.
      More to that- "Jews" (who do you refer that term?) never had 1 culture, identity, etc- come on...there are many books about it, why not study them? The idea that Jews have 1 culture, religious tradition was promoted by Zionism, and not even by every Zionist, read about cultural Zionists! "Jews" don't share 1 thought/identity or whatever (as one of the pro-israeli commentators here even wrote) "JEWS" ARE NOT BORGS FROM STAR TREK! (there are not a race, and are not 1 ethnic group)

      Also Zionists from Europe didn't give much damn about local Jews in Palestine (and from other ME countries) and vice versa. Zionists view them as primitive and that they didn't represent their view of how Jews should act, believe, etc. Why? Well...they spoke Arabic, shared even some of the tradistions with Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian... You should read about how Zionists treated local Jews in Hebron (and the slobdoka yeshiva)! Local Palestinian Jews were often anti-Zionist, local rabbis in public preached about the danger coming from Zionists (especially in the 20s and 30's), even the term "sabra" was used by local Jews as a negative term for new immigrants! Read about late Ottoman period- how local Jews interacted with other Palestinians- Zionists didn't care much about local Jews and their identity, traditions, etc... Read the books by Salim Tamari or Yuval Ben-Bassat "Late Ottoman Palestine" also AMMIEL ALCALAY "After Jews And Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture" and "Lives in Common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron", by Menachem Klein and "We Look Like the Enemy: The Hidden Story of Israel's Jews from Arab Lands" by Rachel Shabi.

      1.Keith W. Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History
      2.Thomas L. Thompson,The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel
      3.Ohana,The shaping of Israeli identity:myth,memory,and trauma
      4.Orr,Israel:Politics, Myths and Identity Crises
      5.Oz,The Sabra: the creation of the new Jew;
      6.Sternhell,The Founding Myths of Israel:Nationalism, Socialism and the Making of the Jewish State
      7.Zerubavel,Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition
      8. D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times
      Those are only a few from many other great books on the subject.

      About natonalism itself you can read: Craig Calhoun "Nationalism",A. Giddens, Charles Tilly, J. Breuilly, R. Brubaker, Anthony Smith, Michael Billig and many others. Many books you can download.
      About communities and nationalism: Benedict Anderson
      About ethnicity a great summary of modern works about it you can find in "Ethnicity", by Steve Fenton.

  • Caroline Glick says there were no Palestinian refugees
    • excuse me? Is this part addressed to me? It takes an absolutely demented, hate-filled ,mind to accuse the Jews of profitting from WW2

      Well well...I hope not...+ it shows you have no detailed knowledge of the war and the events before/after it...
      If you like it or not SOME Jews (as Zionist and even non-zionist) did profit from the war in various ways, you can't just dismiss them like that, because you don't like that fact- it is childish.
      Another thing is the use of those facts... as I wrote before: for propaganda use, to justify some acts, etc facts are inflated and so on. Zionists did/do the same when it comes to Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, etc. It is all normal when it comes to those types of actions (I wrote about it elsewhere). Hamas used the well known (by then) facts of Zionist (or non-zionist) influence on American or British policy, their various policy during the war (and before 1939).. etc. They combined all that info and used to show their international support (which they had/have) and that Palestinians don't have that kind of support. Of course in part it is propaganda, but if you dismiss some historical facts because they were used (and inflated) by sb you don't like, it only shows that your lack of certain knowledge about history and rather to admit that in certain ways those things took place you prefer to pretend that non of them happened at all...

      The Secret Contacts - Zionism and Nazi Germany 1933-1941 -- Journal of Palestine Studies -- Polkehn,Klaus, Vol-5, No-3-4
      https://archive.org/details/TheSecretContacts-ZionismAndNaziGermany1933-1941

      Zionists (also non-zionist Jews) in US didn't have the same narrative, policy, etc as other Zionists (or non-zionist Jews)... that is shown for example in their attitude toward the German government in the 30's. Read about the Verein who were against anti-german propaganda especially of the US Zionists and even non-zionist Jews...They were afraid that the anti-german propaganda will have consequences on Jews living in Germany...
      On March 12, 1933 the American Jewish Congress (considered non-zionist) announced a protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27...+ called for an American boycott of German goods. On March 23 there were protests at New York's City Hall... boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City.

      The Zionist Union for Germany (or Zionist Association of Germany) sent a telegram on March 26, 1933:
      “In regard to foreign misinformation about the German Jews for the purpose of making anti-German propaganda, The Zionist Union for Germany declares: With great resolve we have informed the entire Jewish world press via the Jewish Telegraph Agency, already on March 17th, of our declaration against all anti-German propaganda. We have publicly repeated our protest against all untruthful atrocity announcements and baseless sensationalism. We protest against every attempt to place Jewish interests at the service of other countries or groups. The defence of Jews’ civil rights and their economic position cannot and must not be coupled with anti-German political actions.”... We all know the direct response to that boycott...

      Aside of that issue (as various Zionist and Jewish policy before 1939), which you can explore on your own there is also this:
      Robert John (for example he wrote with Sami Hadawi,"Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention, 1914-1948", first published in 1970, includes a foreword by British historian Arnold Toynbee) wrote:
      Britain, France and Germany attached considerable importance to the attitudes of Jewry towards them because money and credit were needed for the war. The international banking houses of Lazard Frères, Eugene Mayer, J. & W. Seligman, Speyer Brothers and M.M. Warburg, were all conducting major operations in the United States, as were the Rothschilds through the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Apart from their goodwill the votes of America's Jewish community of 3,000,000 were important to the issue of that country's intervention or non-intervention in the war, and the provision of military supplies.

      Read about: Jacob Schiff, German-born senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He wrote in The Menorah Journal of April 1915: "It is well known that I am a German sympathizer ... England has been contaminated by her alliance with Russia ... am quite convinced that in Germany anti-Semitism is a thing of the past. The Jewish Encyclopedia for 1906 states that "Schiff's firm subscribed for and floated the large Japanese war loan in 1904-05" (for the Russo-Japanese war). "in recognition of which the Mikado conferred on Schiff the second order of the Sacred Treasure of Japan." Partners with Schiff were Felix M. Warburg and his brother Paul who had come to New York in 1902 from Hamburg, and organized the Federal Reserve System.Read more in: Behind the Balfour Declaration. Britain's Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild, by Robert John

      Who do you think profited for example from the "Transfer Agreement"? The poor Jews? The people who couldn't afford to leave on their own? Well Hostage wrote about it before, and he gave nice bibliography for it. Getting Jews to Palestine required money, proprer propaganda and even forceful acts toward Jews who didn't share the idea of going to Palestine [...forced draft of eligible conscripts in the Jewish Displaced Persons Camps in Germany and Austria after the War- in: Justifying the Obligation to Die: War, Ethics, and Political Obligation with Illustrations from Zionism, by Ilan Zvi Baron.]... deal with it.
      WANT MORE?
      Israeli reporter, Bo'az Evron, writing in the April 4, 1991 Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, actually described Israel's policy toward Soviet Jews as, in his own words, "anti-Semitic":
      "The new Jewish immigrants are, in fact, refugees fleeing a country fast falling apart ... Israeli and Zionist emissaries have left no stone unturned in prodding the nations of the world to deny entry to Jewish refugees, so as to force them to settle in Israel...But this means that the nations of the world, at Israel's prodding, have consciously embarked upon a policy of discrimination against the Jewish refugees. Incontestably, it is an anti-Semitic policy which in a different context could not fail to provoke outrage. Only because the gates have been locked, and [the Soviet Jews] have nowhere else to go, can we celebrate the 'immigration miracle.'
      "If they were guided by the best interests of these Jews, the [Israeli] government and the Jewish Agency would seek to open all the doors in the world to everyone wishing to leave the USSR... But who cares about the best interests of these Jews? They concern Shamir and Sharon only insofar as they can populate the settlements, or serve as a pretext for grabbing more land in the West Bank, or become soldiers in future wars ...
      "Here the great secret of Zionism in the past few generations stands revealed. Long ago, Zionism ceased its concern for what is good for the Jews. Quite the contrary, Zionism is interested in seeing to it that the Jews suffer, so that they will leave their homes and come to Israel. This is why each glimmer of anti-Semitism fills the hearts of Zionists with relief. Zionism needs Jews in order to boost the Jewish population and military strength of Israel, not for their own sake ... As human beings, they are of no concern to either the State of Israel or the Zionist Movement."
      MORE:
      Baruch Kimmerling, in his review of Yosef Grodzinsky's In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II, writes:
      "Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders vetoed the immigration of 1,000 orphans, who were in physical and emotional danger as a result of the harsh winter of 1945, from the camps in Germany to England, where the Jewish community had managed to secure them permits. Another group of roughly 500 children of camp inhabitants was barred, after Zionist intervention, from reaching France, whose rabbinical institutions had offered them safe haven."
      Yitzchak Greenbaum, Chairman of the (Zionist) Jewish Agency's Rescue Committee in Jerusalem, wrote, "when they asked me, couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said, 'NO!' and I say again, 'NO!'...one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance." In February, 1943, Greenbaum gave a speech in Tel Aviv on the subject, "The Diaspora and the Redemption" in which he said:
      "When they come to us with two plans -- the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land [settling Jews in Palestine -- JS] -- I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land...If there would be a possibility today of buying packages of food with the money of the Keren Hayesod (United Jewish Appeal) to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing? No! and once again No!"- in his book In Days of Holocaust and Destruction
      MORE:
      Times of London of June 6, 1961, Rabbi Dr. Solomon Schonfeld, who served in the period of the Holocaust as the chairman of the rescue committee founded by the chief rabbi of Britain,, publicized a letter to the editor which set off a storm amongst British Zionists: Your recent reports of the Eichmann trial include considerable evidence tending to show that H. M. Government was largely indifferent to and unwilling to take action in defense of the European Jews who were l massacred daily by the Nazis; and that this was so in spite of efforts by Zionist leaders to persuade the British Foreign Office to rouse itself into action on behalf of the victims. In your leader (June 1) you express concern lest it be held that our wartime Government was guilty of negligence in the face of the holocaust. Your correspondent succinctly suggests that the attention now being given to this side of the picture is connected with some current criticism of Zionist inactivity during the war.
      “My experience in 1942-43 was wholly in favor of British readiness to help, openly, constructively and totally, and that this readiness met with opposition from Zionist leaders who insisted on rescue to Palestine as the only acceptable form of help".
      AND SO ON....

      As you can see Zionist policy wasn't monolithic... And you can't just write that sb couldn't just do sth only because you think there was 1 Zionist policy (toward Jews, Germans, war, etc)... There was no such thing. You also must read more about pre-war Jewish (as non-zionist) and Zionist policy... since we can all see you have a rather romantic vision of that policy to say the least....

      You can read:
      1.Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir
      2.Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, by Rafael Medoff.
      3.Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, by John B. Judis
      4.51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, by Lenni Brenner
      5.Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews, by Naeim Giladi
      6. Idith Zertal books:
      From Catastrophe to Power: The Holocaust Survivors and the Emergence of Israel
      Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood
      7.Before Catastrophe: The Distinctive Path of German Zionism, by Hagit Lavsky
      8.Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary and Other Documents
      9.In the Shadow of the Holocaust. The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II, by Yosef Grodzinsky
      10.The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals

      you cannot dismiss the simple fact that some Jews did profit from the war... some preferred to sacrifice Jews to boost emigration to Palestine. Some for example saw an opportunity in war to boost the Zionist cause in Palestine (read about Max Nordau and the Zionist Congress at Basle in August 1903; Chaim Weizmann's letter to Justice Louis D. Brandeis in 1918, etc)- that is no secret! Do you also deny the Zionist and Jewish influence on US or British policy? Read the above books then....

      Really... read those books... and don't use that old accusation of anti-semitism to cover up your lack of certain historical knowledge and your ideological preferences.

    • @Jon:
      I am writing regarding the use of religious Zionist rhetoric to mobilize society (like Hamas)

      Yitzhak Shamir, former Prime Minister of Israel, in one of his political speeches described Palestinians as Canaanites, as did Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (second president of Israel) and many other Israeli politicians
      B.L. Ra'ad, Who Are The „Canaanites”?, „The Link”2011, vol.44 no.5

      Ramon Bennett in his work "Philistine: The Great Deception" compares Palestinians to the biblical Philistines. Bennett used this comparison to criticize political decisions taken during the peace talks in Oslo. According to him, as foreign ppl Palestinians have no right to the land of Palestine, which they reside. He uses symbolism and mythology of the Bible to legitimize his and Israel's position.

      Ilan Gur-Ze'ev writes about the role of "goy" in Zionist discourse as a historical realization of "Amalek"- as an idea. Palestinian Arabs were often presented as such (even in school textbooks)- in:Destroying the Other's Collective Memory, p. 34-35; 74-75.
      More: In Spite of Partition: Jews, Arabs, and the Limits of Separatist Imagination, by Gil Z. Hochberg.
      Ilan Zvi Baron writes that the more militant Zionists adopted without hesitation Biblical myths and stories of Jewish resistance against the Romans to exaggerate the historical significance, Jewish relevance, and heroics of the Zionist dying for the sake of Zionism. By the late 1940s,these ideas were so firmly implanted in the Zionist psyche that when the time came there was little ideological or moral resistance to establishing a forced draft of eligible conscripts in the Jewish Displaced Persons Camps in Germany and Austria after the War- in: Justifying the Obligation to Die: War, Ethics, and Political Obligation with Illustrations from Zionism, by Ilan Zvi Baron. There is lot more on the subject in his book.

      The use of Bible symbols and myths in various drafts of the Israeli declaration and in its final version or in other documents, political ideas etc you can read in: Jewish Rhetorics: History, Theory, Practice, by Michael Bernard-Donals and Janice W. Fernheimer.

      Robert Eisen writes that so called secular Zionists revered the Bible but rejected rabbinic Judaism. This tendency was particulaerly strong among right-wing secular Zionists. Thinkers in this group, such as Berdichevsky and Brenner, looked to the Bible to provide models for militarism, heroism, and bravery whom modern Zionists should emulate.They created what Ehud Luz reffered to as a counterhistory by glorifying the militarism of the Maccabees, the Zealots, Bar Kokhba, and those who died at Masada, and by vilifying R. Yohanan b. Zakkai, who ed the Jews to surrender to Rome. In: The Peace and Violence of Judaism: From the Bible to Modern Zionism, by Robert Eisen.

      Ben-Gurion recognized the need for a "national narrative" and turned to the Bible for that story. In that national narrative, Ben-Gurion de-emphasized the "suffering of the Jews in the diaspora—which had been the central factor in shaping classical Zionist theory" and instead emphasized "the bond between the Jewish people and its land." As explained earlier, Ben-Gurion's use of biblical language was calculated, not millennial. Shapira notes that "Ben-Gurion's motive in refasioning his narrative was functional, a product of his interpretation of the new situation taking place before his eyes.-in: SHARED LAND/CONFLICTING IDENTITY, by Robert C. Rowland and David A Frank.
      Guess what! Hamas works similarly ;] That is why it is hard to call Hamas an "islamist" party or movement... They use religion in a different way than actual islamist movements- I gave some bibliography for that in earlier post, like: Kh.Hroub, Salafi Formations in Palestine and the Limits of a De-Palestinised Milieu, “Holy Land Studies” .

      Books on the topic:
      The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in 1.Palestine- Israel, by Nur Masalha
      2.Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, by Nur Masalha
      3.Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State: Prophetic Rhetoric in the Service of Political Objectives, by Amos Kiewe
      http://vpa.syr.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/TheodoreHerzlsTheJewishState.pdf
      4.Political Uses of the Hebrew Bible in Current Israeli Discourse: Transcending Right and Left, by Fania Oz-Salzberger
      http://www.academia.edu/1803735/Political_Uses_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_in_Current_Israeli_Discourse_Transcending_Right_and_Left
      5.In general use of Bible in politics, etc., you can read:
      The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique, by Michael Prior

      So as you can see Zionists use religious references too, they used and use it to mobilize ppl...as Hamas does. Bible was/is often used against Palestinians as the representatives of ancient Canaanites or Philistines who can be rid of. Their expulsion therefore is justified. Why do you think Bibi gave Obama the Bible (and not Mark Twain's book as it was firstly thought). So ging by your own argumentation: Zionists practice what they preach, terrorism and murder (with the ongoing Nakba, brutal occupation, racism...)...BUT this thinking is counterproductive and doesn't explain anything nor it is useful in anyway. It just blurs the political and social reality of both sides.

    • @Jon,
      Come on;] The quote was about Jews that opposed Muslims (not all Jews + from a long time ago) + it is a typical motivational technic to encourage to resist, fight the enemy. You know... Jews used similar rhetoric fighting Palestinians during British Mandate, they used even fragments of the Bible against them, etc...(and still do ;]) So it is a typical rhetoric used by many groups... The context of the Chart is still about Zionist (who were mostly Jews...hence the use of that quote to fight against them).
      As to the other article about Zionist using money and their influence- it is in some part true, is it not?? The difference between their influence on British and US policy was much much greater than Palestinians could even wish to have. They stressed that fact it that article. The Jews weren't the big force of every historical event they mentioned (but still the communist part is not that far off, or the financial gains by trading in armaments (not only that), but still you can't deny those things took place... it is typical to exaggerate to show sb's point. Zionist did/do the same when it comes to Muslims and Arabs too- see... it is a typical technic.
      Read:
      1.Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir
      2.Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, by Rafael Medoff.
      3.Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, by John B. Judis
      About that "summer war" I replied:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/caroline-palestinian-refugees#comment-732726 and about Hamas: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/caroline-palestinian-refugees#comment-732671

    • @DaBakr:
      well you don't discover anything when you say there are different speeches given depending on to whom it is addressed. Israeli politicians do that too and you know it :) Have you ever heard for example about Herzliya conferences in Israel? Well you will find it interesting how different are the speeches given there from those later announced to the Western press, etc ;]

      About the speech:
      Have you read it with a cool head? Have you noticed it is quite ambiguous??
      Jerome Slater rightly notes that:
      Khaled Meshal proclaimed that Hamas would never recognize Israel or abandon its claim to all Israeli territory: "Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land.” There can be no doubt that Meshal’s demagogic but empty rhetoric was shocking, irresponsible, and profoundly stupid. Nor can there be any doubt that he has handed Netanyahu and the Israeli right precisely the excuse they want to continue the policy of no negotiations with Hamas—or even, in quite imaginable circumstances, to launch a massive attack on Gaza to destroy Hamas.

      Nonetheless, for a number of reasons Meshal’s buffoonery does not justify Israel’s refusal to explore the possibility of a negotiated two-state negotiated settlement with Hamas—or perhaps even with Meshal himself. First, some of what Meshal said was ambiguous, and probably deliberately so: “We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take." That is, Meshal could be read as saying that Hamas would never recognize the legitimacy of Israel as long as the occupation continues, in which case he was still leaving open the possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict if Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

      In fact, there are a number of strong indications that Meshal has been steadily moving, however inconsistently, towards a negotiated settlement. I provide the evidence for this in my extended discussion of the evolution of Hamas in general and Meshal in particular in my recent International Security article on the 2008-09 Israeli attack on Gaza (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22373/just_war_moral_philosophy_and_the_200809_israeli_campaign_in_gaza.html).

      Read his summary and the article here:
      http://www.jeromeslater.com/2012/12/what-to-make-of-khaled-meshal.html

      UK’s Observer adds “kill Jews” to Hamas leader Khaled Meshal’s Gaza speech when he did not say it
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/uks-observer-adds-kill-jews-hamas-leader-khaled-meshals-gaza-speech-when-he-did

      Understanding Hamas after Khaled Meshaal's Gaza speech
      http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121215135432787820.html

      And yeah... historical Palestine is considered by many Palestinians as their home. And that doesn't mean that they don't recognize Israel. It is their historical legacy, which they don't want to forget or lose. So no surprise here.
      But later he says about the occupation, etc. THAT IS WHY HIS SPEECH IS AMBIGUOUS- it is addressed to many ppl, he wanted to satisfy them all...

      Time and again Hamas and Meshal stated they will recognise Israel if it ends the occupation.
      Two examples, you can find the rest yourself (+ Jerome Slater's article above):
      Meshaal: We are ready to coexist with Jews, but not 'occupiers' (2014)
      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=716621

      #GazaUnderAttack | The Speech of Khaled Meshaal – July 23, 2014
      With transcriptions:
      Meshal: Resistance will only disarm on 2 conditions. 1) Israel to end all its occupation of Palestine 2) Israel has to disarm too
      http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/gazaunderattack-the-speech-of-khaled-meshaal-july-23-2014/

      Ignoring his other speeches, both before and after that of 2012 and ignoring the nuances of the speech itself doesn't constitute a good argument on your part. Don't forget that he has opposition and critics in Hamas... Hamas actually has many voices and that must be taken into account too.
      The fact remains that you added some words that he didn't say. That is just dishonest.

      It's like taking only one speech/interview with Netanyahu [from his many speeches about opposing the ending of the occupation, establishing a Palestinian state, etc.] and on that basis (ignoring the opposition to him, his other speeches, in both English and Hebrew) describe his and his party's entire complex politics. I doubt you would praise this type of action in his case, so why do it in the case of Meshal and Hamas?

      If anyone is interested:
      The Translatability of Figures of Speech in Khalid Mashaal’s Political Speeches: A Critical Discourse Analysis, by Ahmad Mohammad Al-Harahsheh
      http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/viewFile/25351/16690

    • Of course Annie you are right!:) I wanted to stress that the date of the announcement of the completion of Hamas-Fatah agreement in June has to do with the Israeli air strike and missiles fired in late June :)

    • @Jon
      Also in the Charter: Article Thirty-One:
      "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that".
      The struggle isn't against Jews but Zionists (who are mostly Jews, that is why they sometimes use Jews as synonym of a Zionist).

      About the "war"
      Remember that the situation was being inflamed by Israel for a long time now (for example the murder of the teenagers).
      On June 2, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas announced the completion of an agreement unifying the two governments

      Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, however vowed never to work with a government that included Hamas...

      The abduction and murder of three Israeli youths was met by Mr Netanyahu’s response: “Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay.” - NO PROOF FOR THAT!!
      Bibi's aim was to discredit Mahmoud Abbas for reconciling with Hamas

      A ‘search and destroy’ operation was initiated: Israeli army rampages which targeted anything affiliated with Hamas on the West Bank. Hundreds were arrested, about 500 total, and about a dozen Palestinians killed

      burning alive of a Palestinian teenager by several Israelis.

      The rampage of Israeli soldiers in the west Bank was quickly followed by aerial attacks by Israel into Gaza which killed seven Hamas members.

      Read this: Look Carefully at Who Started the Current Israel-Hamas Conflict
      http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/22/self-defense-or-atrocties-in-gaza/look-carefully-at-who-started-the-current-israel-hamas-conflict

      Blaming Hamas rockets for instigating the Israeli attacks ignores what preceded those rocket launchings. The Times of Israel reported that Hamas had fired missiles on June 30, for the first time since the November 2012 cease-fire, “in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier.” Earlier rocket fire came from other groups in Gaza which, the article notes, Hamas had tried to stop.

      Before that, Israel rampaged through the West Bank after three young Israeli settlers were kidnapped, even though the Israelis apparently knew they were already dead. This ratcheted up tensions over an action that Hamas leaders in Gaza appear not to have authorized. Israel somehow thinks it can kill civilians in the West Bank, arrest hundreds, and harass thousands and not be blamed for starting this round of violence with Palestinians.

      Israel chose that war...and did what it did...
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israel-lost-war-gaza-struggle-justice-goes

      Israel keeping Gaza siege despite deal
      https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/13839-israel-keeping-gaza-siege-despite-deal-official

      For Israel, the beginning of wisdom is to admit its mistakes Israel should embrace Palestinian unity for its own security. A further land grab will only inflame tensions
      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/israel-palestinian-unity-land-grab

      Exclusive: Israel's Video Justifying Destruction of a Gaza Hospital Was From 2009
      http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25999-israels-video-justifying-destruction-of-a-hospital-was-from-2009

      Medical personnel claim Israel tested new weapons during attacks on Gaza
      http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/medical-personnel-claim-israel-tested-new-weapons-during-attacks-on-gaza-1.1919645#.VAtJsjImL0g.facebook

      Netanyahu urges Ban to postpone probe into shelling of UN facilities in Gaza
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.618747?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+imeu+%28IMEU+%3A+Institute+for+Middle+East+Understanding%29

      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/israeli-officer-admits-ordering-lethal-strike-own-soldier-during-gaza-massacre

      http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-tested-an-improved-arrow-2-2014-9

      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/watch-testimonies-atrocities-gaza-russell-tribunal

      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/patrick-strickland/prominent-israeli-settler-rabbi-calls-cleansing-palestinians

      Netanyahu urges Ban to postpone probe into shelling of UN facilities in Gaza
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.618747?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+imeu+%28IMEU+%3A+Institute+for+Middle+East+Understanding%29

      Not to mention the atrocities Israel committed during the war, even killed one of their own...So blaming Hamas for the war is just erroneous.

    • @Jon:
      When it comes to the Covenant I won't repeat myself (archive), but still I will write that ppl use it as a distraction to omit the issue of contemporary Hamas' actions and ideas...
      Article 7."...struggle against the Zionist invaders" is this the part you are referring to? What is wrong with that? When you take into account Nakba, the occupation etc. it is a typical resistance statement actually... They write about Zionism and Zionists not Jews in general. The part mentioning Jews is a quote... The main issue therefore are Zionists and Zionism.
      Article 22- still about Zionists and Zionist interests.

      If you would wait with the comment and read at least the articles or some parts of the 1st and 2nd book you wouldn't so easily write about Hamas being murderous! Come on... you place so much emphasis on meaning and yet you don't mind writing that!

      Still more important are the contemporary docs and doings... not some old document that wasn't even basis for the politics of the "old guard".

      About the summer: so much has been written about the genesis of it that I don't have time now to write about it. It is hard though to blame only Hamas... Israel wanted to break Hamas-Fatah deal, the killings of the Palestinian youths... that "war" had its genesis...
      Can Israel Claim Self-Defense Against the Territory It Occupies? Int’l Jurist John Dugard Says No
      http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/6/can_israel_claim_self_defense_against

      Discussion would be more productive if ppl just took the time to read and later comment... Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to write everytime the same thing over and over again.

    • @Walid and Mooser :)
      Here are some interesting photos too :)
      The Great War in Palestine: Dr Tawfiq Canaan's Photographic Album
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/JQ%2056-57%20The%20Great%20War.pdf

      More photos here: Before Their Diaspora is a visual journey into Palestine before 1948.
      http://btd.palestine-studies.org/

      You can look into Khalil Raad's photos too :)
      There is a good article about him by Salim Tamari:
      The War Photography of Khalil Raad: Ottoman Modernity and the Biblical Gaze
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/JQ-52-Tamari-The_War_Photography_of_Khalil_Raad_1.pdf
      And:
      Perspective is everything.
      From 1891 until 1948 the Jerusalem photographer Chalil Raad documented Palestinian society of the time as well as Zionist land settlement.
      http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/perspective-is-everything-1.315478

      Or women like: Karimeh Abbud, Najla Ra'ad (wife of Johannes Krikorian), Margo Abdo. You can read: Issam Nassar "Early Local Photography in Palestine: The Legacy of Karimeh Abbud" in: http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/46-Early_local_photographer_2.pdf

      Interesting is also the case of Elia Kahvedjian:
      The finest photographs of early 20th century Palestine, shuttered in controversy
      The family of Armenian refugee and photographer Elia Kahvedjian is fighting to preserve his legacy:
      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-finest-photographs-of-early-20th-century-palestine-shuttered-in-controversy-1.411086
      In that article:
      One of the photos became the focus of a political controversy last year. The picture, a portrait of a Palestinian family taken in a citrus grove at the end of the 1930s, served as the basis for artist Eliyahu Arik Bokobza's painting "The Citrus Grower." MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union ) protested the Knesset's purchase of the painting for its permanent exhibit, claiming that it was an attempt to depict the past from an Arab perspective, and suggest that "we robbed and expelled them."

      A. Merli, A New Art in an Ancient Land: Palestine through the lens of early European photographers, "The Jerusalem Quarterly", issue 50, 2012
      L. Wheatley-Irving, Holy Land Photographs and Their Worlds Francis Bedford and the ‘Tour in the East’, "The Jerusalem Quarterly", issue 31, 2007
      You can read it all online :)

      ps. I wish you all a Happy New Year!!:)

    • @Jon
      heh well this is really tiresome...some ppl just love generalization, it makes everything easier :) It is like saying: well it is Likud (or sth else)... you know... Likud- bad Ju-Ju and all, who needs any more knowledge about them and stuff... Isn't it a great and comprehensive argument? Who needs any confirmation of an info...you know...cause it is xx...
      So yeah... who cares what he really said right? I had this discussion before, you can read it in the archive.

      Additional reading, if you even care:
      1.AWESOME BOOK: J. Gunning, Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence, Columbia University Press New York 2009
      2.THIS TOO: Y. Sayigh, Hamas Rule in Gaza: Three Years On
      http://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB41.pdf
      3.Yezid Sayigh, Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949-1993
      4.Kh. Hroub, Hamas: Political Though and Practice, Institute for Palestine Studies, 2000
      5.Kh. Hroub, A “New Hamas” through Its New Documents, "Journal of Palestine Studies", vol.35 no.4, 2006
      6.L.D. Lybarger, Identity and Religion in Palestine. The Struggle Between Islamism and Secularism in the Occupied Territories, Princeton University Press, Princeton 2007
      7.Z. Abu-Amr, Hamas: A Historical and Political Background, “Journal of Palestine Studies”, vol.22 no.4, 1993
      8.J. Adas, Mazin Qumsiyeh on the History and Practice Of Nonviolent Palestinian Resistance, “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs” 2010
      http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/351-2010-may-june/9051%20-mazin-qumsiyeh-on-the-history-
      and-practice-of-nonviolent-palestinian%20-resistance-.html
      9.A. Yousef, The Hamas Charter: Vision, fact and fiction
      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=353587
      10.R. Gaes, Interview with Mousa Abu Marzook
      http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Interview+with+Mousa+Abu+Marzook.-a019496510
      *many of them you can just download...

      And really ppl should know the diff between Hamas and the so called "religious movements"... Read for example this:
      1.R.C.Martin, A. Barzegar, Islamism. Contested Persprectives on Political Islam, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2010
      2.(!) Kh.Hroub, Salafi Formations in Palestine and the Limits of a De-Palestinised Milieu, “Holy Land Studies”, vol.7 no.2, 2008
      3.A. Bayat, What is Post-Islamism?, “ISIM Review 16”, no. 5, 2005

      Also:
      1.Kill Him Silently. The story behind Mossad's bungled bid to assassinate Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.
      http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2013/01/201312210472621589.html
      2.Kill Khalid: The Failed Mossad Assassination of Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas, by Paul McGeough

      After all this you will know why you are wrong...

    • You are right Annie :) And I didn't understand that part too...

    • odd...even The Times of Israel writes that he said: "liberate Palestine and Jerusalem". Haaretz: he praised the Turkish leadership and called for greater Turkish-Palestinian co-operation in the "fight to liberate Jerusalem," Turkey's Hurriyet reported. + "Meshal enthusiastically praised the Turkish leadership and expressed hopes Turkey would in the future join the Palestinian people in their fight to "liberate Palestine and Jerusalem." Also: "Khaled Mashaal, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, has made a surprise appearance at an event of Turkey's ruling party, endorsing the Turkish leaders and voicing his hope to "liberate Palestine and Jerusalem" together with them in the future."A strong Turkey means a strong Palestine ... Inshallah, God is with us and with you on the road to victory," Mashaal said in his address to the Justice and Development Party's (AKP) annual congress in the Konya province on Dec. 27." in http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/hamas-leader-mashaal-endorses-turkish-leaders-in-surprise-speech.aspx?PageID=238&NID=76166&NewsCatID=352

      Why did you add "ALL"??

  • Selfies with Santa, fake trees, and businesses striving to stay afloat as Bethlehem celebrates Christmas
  • Hatim Kanaaneh: What Mondoweiss Means To Me
    • why are you writing about rights??
      International Law is clear about the occupation and the settlements. The pdf you provided isn't about rights but about this problem:
      1. In October 2007, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) filed a lawsuit against Alstom and Veolia in the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Nanterre, France).

      2.In October 2007, the corporate defendants moved to dismiss the case and questioned the admissibility of AFPS’ requests to nullify the contract, arguing that it was outside the scope of French jurisdiction.

      3.In April 2009, without reaching the merits of the case, the Nanterre Tribunal ruled that it was within its jurisdiction to hear the case. It also ruled that the PLO could not be accepted as a co-plaintiff. The Tribunal underlined that the defendants were not in a position to plead immunity, as corporate entities are not included as subjects of sovereign immunity.

      4.Alstom and its subsidiary Alstom Transport, appealed the decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance in November 2009. Veolia did not contest the ruling; it sold its shares in the City Pass Consortium to Dan Bus Company in September 2009.

      5.In December 2009, the Appeals Court upheld the rulings of the Tribunal de Grande Instance; emphasising that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. In February 2010, Alstom appealed this decision (particularly, the jurisdiction of the French courts) to the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation). In February 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

      6.In May 2011, the Nanterre Tribunal ruled on the merits and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments to cancel the contract. AFPS and PLO appealed the decision. The Appeals Court decision of 22 March 2013 declared that PLO could be accepted as co-plaintiff, but ruled the suit was inadmissible. The court found that the international agreements in question create obligations between states, and could not be used to hold two private companies liable. The court ordered AFPS and PLO to pay € 30,000 to each of the three companies to cover their expenses during the lawsuit.-YOU SEE WHAT WAS THE RULING ALL ABOUT? NOT ABOUT RIGHT OR THE SETTLEMENTS AND OCCUPATION BUT ABOUT LEGAL ISSUE CONCERNING WHO CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE: IN THIS CASE IT SAID: STATES and not companies!!
      http://business-humanrights.org/en/veolia-alstom-lawsuit-re-jerusalem-rail-project#c86290

      It doesn't say anything about rights! Did you even read it?

      The claims were dismissed since Alstom and Veolia clould not be held liable for any breach of int.conventions regulating the occupation of foreign territory, since only Israel was bound by such provisions + they weren't party to the concession contract woith Israel but to legally distinct contracts with Citypass. BUT the court didn't reject outright the notion that individuals and corporations could have a limited form of international personality. Rather the court analysed the genesis and wording of the appeal- so stay tuned....

      READ MORE:AFPS and PLO v. Alstom and Veolia (Versailles Ct. App.), Introductory Note by Noah Rubins and Gisèle Stephens-Chu
      http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.5305/intelegamate.52.5.1157?uid=3738840&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21105519730813

      Next time read the docs yourself before you use them for sth.

    • More about the issue:
      From GA: Sixty-seventh session Item 70 (c) of the provisional agenda*,**
      Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives
      http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/4b2de5243ebce35685257aa200487927

      11. The establishment of the settlements is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law as set forth in the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) and the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an Occupying Power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory. The Hague Regulations prohibit an Occupying Power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless justified by military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

      12. In building settlements and associated infrastructure, Israel further violates international law through the appropriation of Palestinian property not justified by military necessity, and by imposing severe movement restrictions on Palestinians. Such restrictions violate those human rights dependent on freedom of movement, including rights to health, education, family life, work and worship. In addition, the scale of Israel’s settlement project and the massive financial investment in it appear to confirm Israel’s intention to retain control over these areas, thus violating a core principle of the Charter of the United Nations, namely Article 2 (4), which prohibits the acquisition of territory by the use or threat of force. Moreover, the settlements fragment the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, into isolated geographical units, severely limiting the possibility of a contiguous territory and the ability to dispose freely of natural resources, both of which are required for the meaningful exercise of the fundamental and inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. READ THE REST....

      ALSO:
      1. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
      37. The Special Rapporteur notes that the businesses highlighted in this report constitute a small portion of a wide range of companies that have linked their business operations to Israel’s settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. The Special Rapporteur received a large amount of information from stakeholders concerning business practices of companies in relation to Israel’s settlements; further investigations will be made to determine whether those allegations are well founded and may lead to additional attention in future reports. The businesses include, inter alia, retailers and supermarket chains, fast food suppliers, wine producers and products that are often labelled “products of Israel”, but are in reality produced or extracted from the occupied Palestinian territory. They include small, medium and large Israeli-owned companies and multinational corporations. The Special Rapporteur limits coverage to selected illustrative cases; it proved necessary to exclude a significant amount of reliable information at this stage, owing in particular to the word limit imposed by the United Nations on this report.

      2. Veolia Environnement is listed there among others...

      Also on MW:
      Veolia, Mekorot and the struggle for Palestinian water rights
      Veolia, a local BDS target, loses Massachusetts commuter rail contract
      Veolia and breaches of international law: http://www.ipsc.ie/campaigns/veolia/veolia-and-breaches-of-international-law

      The Trouble With Veolia and Palestine:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-macdonald/veolia-palestine_b_2175248.html

      @Veolia transportation firm divests from Israeli settlement bus lines: After a campaign beginning more than six years ago, activists with the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement have declared a major victory this week, when the French transportation company Veolia Transdev (partially owned by environmental services company Veolia Inc.) sold off its bus lines which operate in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories.

  • Israel should pay 1.4 million Palestinians to leave Gaza, Moshe Feiglin says
    • @Yonah:
      I want to add also this (it was 4 am so I didn't have the time;p ):
      More about Palestinian Nationalism (neutral term)
      Delegates from the Palestinian territories to the Ottoman parliament, regardless of their attitude towards the central government (mostly supported decentralization) treated Palestine as a separate territorial unit, which had its own socio-political interests. Naǧīb Azuri already in 1908 proposed his candidacy for parliament as a Palestinian representative. Such delegates as Ruhi al-Halidi, Sa'id al-Husayni and Hafiz as-Sa'id for example warned against too liberal policy towards Jewish immigration and Zionism, which according to them, was harming the local socio-political interests in Palestine.

      Read for example about the letter written by Yūsuf Ḍiyāʾ al-Ḫālidī in 1899 (who was elected to the Ottoman parliament in 1877) to Zadok Kahn,the chief rabbi of France, he suggested that, since Palestine was already inhabited, the Zionists should find another place for the implementation of their political goals. " ... in the name of God," he wrote, "let Palestine be left alone."
      In the Name of God, Let Palestine Be Left Alone, Before Their Diaspora, A Project of the Institute for Palestine Studies
      http://btd.palestine-studies.org/content/name-god-let-palestine-be-left-alone-1-0
      R. Khalidi, Palestinian Identity...
      J. Bussow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1972-1908
      A. Manna, Ottoman Period, Late, [in:] Encyclopedia of the Palestinians...,ed.Ph. Mattar
      B. Abu-Manneh, The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century

      During the 20s XX century Palestinians held few delegations to London to present their position as the nation with the right to self-determination. They used the International Law to stress the British obligation to prepare the inhabitants of Palestine to independence.
      The main participants of the delegations were members of the Muslim-Christian Association. The original name: the National [as Palestinian] Arab Party stressed not only their identity as Arabs, but also the fact that they were representatives of the Palestinian people. They were forced to change the name by the British, who wanted to keep the religious division of society, and to weaken national aspirations of the Palestinians. The military authorities wanted to emphasize the anonymity of the delegates who had come to protest against Jewish settlement in Palestine and to advance their national rights.[in: 1193
      S. Huneidi, A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians]

      They used a series of letters to Churchill and the British. For example in response to a memorandum by Sir Herbert Samuel and Sir John Shuckburgh entitled "British Policy in Palestine," the Palestinian Arab Delegation, headed by Mousssa Kazin El Husseini, wrote: "The [British] memorandum starts by qualifying us 'a Delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine' not using the expression 'representing the Moslems and Christians of Palestine.' Lest it should be imagined that the Moslem- Christian Society is like any other Society we would explain that this Society unmistakably represents the whole of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, who form 93 per cent of the entire population. In their correspondence with the British, the delegation made sure to capitalize the words "People of Palestine" to underscore their message.
      The phrase "People of Palestine" was intended to set the Arab residents of Palestine apart from Arab residents of Syria and Lebanon and, of course, from the Zionists. The Arabs of Palestine also employed Arabism as a principle they hoped the British would use to differentiate the Zionist claim to the land from that made by Arabs. The "People of Palestine," the delegation argued, were essentially Arabic (on the basis of a shared language, history, and religion) and deserved the same right to form a nation state as the Egyptians, Iraqis, English, and French.They urged the British to rescind the Balfour Declaration and to restrict severely "immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type," in order to give "the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs."
      For example in: Shared Land/Conflicting Identity: Trajectories of Israeli & Palestinian Symbol Use, by Robert C. Rowland, David A. Frank.
      Other examples:
      About the Palestinian Arab Congresses
      M. Muslih, Arab Congress, [in:] Encyclopedia of the Palestinians...,ed.Ph.Mattar
      R.Khalidi, The Formation of Palestinian Identity...
      H. Gerber, Remembering and Imagening Palestine...

      The Arab Congresses were countrywide events initially organized at the initiative of the Jerusalem and Jaffa MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS (MCAs) to formulate Palestinian national demands. Seven such congresses were organized between 1919 and 1928.Seven such congresses were organized between 1919 and 1928.

      The First Congress The First Congress (Jerusalem,1919) brought together, for the first time, Palestinian politicians from all around the country in an attempt to formulate a program to be presented at the Paris Peace Conference. Two views were expressed, one favoring complete Palestinian independence and the other stressing Syrian-Palestinian unity. The latter view prevailed. The congress also demanded that Palestine remain an integral part of an independent SYRIA. It rejected the BALFOUR DECLARATION and approved accep- tance of British assistance in the development of the country on condition that such aid did not compromise Palestinian independence. The Third Congress The Third Congress was held in HAIFA in December 1920. By that time, the balance has shifted in favor of those who preferred Palestinian independence to Syrian-Palestinian unity.This congress called for the establishment of a “national government responsible to a representative assembly” under British supervision and guidance if need be. The congress also elected a Jerusalem- based executive committee—known as the ARAB EXECUTIVE—to run the day-to-day activities of the Palestinian national movement. The program of the congress defined Palestinian political objectives in distinct Palestinian terms, thus helping to develop Palestinian nationalism.

      And there is lots more about that... so have fun reading:)

    • Thank you Adele :)

    • Why do you insist that they are opposite concepts in the first place?:)
      You must have got no idea about Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism whatsoever, eh?:)
      There are many books about that,for example by R. Khalidi, I. Gershoni and Migdal, M. Muslih or read various ideas (of Arab authors) about it all in "Arab Nationalism: An Anthology", by Sylvia Kedourie (Editor), Sylvia G. Haim.

      Palestinians don't have problem with Arab/Palestinian identity (nor other ppl in the Middle East about their own Arab/XX identity);]
      I gave you a list already when I wrote about the fact that they called themselves Palestinians long before 1948: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/million-palestinians-feiglin#comment-732760

      you might add also:
      CONFRONTING AN EMPIRE, CONSTRUCTING A NATION. Arab Nationalists and Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine, by Weldon C. Matthews.

      Besides do you know that there is no single identity of a human?? There are books about it, you should read them. For example Stuart Hall, Charles Taylor and many others...
      About nationalism read: C. Calhoun "Nationalism"- there you have a nice bibliography

    • Yonah- you wrote:
      Talk about something that you know something about instead of parroting the crap you read on the internet.BUT BEFORE THAT YOU WROTE:
      "The indigenous Arabs in 1948 rarely referred to themselves as Palestinians".
      Where did you get that info??

      You should read:
      1.H. Gerber, Remembering and Imagening Palestine, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2008
      2.And his “‘Palestine’ and Other Territorial Concepts in the 17th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 30 (1998)
      3.Doumani, Beshara, “Rediscovering Ottoman Palestine: Writing Palestinians into History.” Journal of Palestine Studies 21(2) (1992)
      4.Doumani, Beshara, Rediscovering Palestine: Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995)

      If you read it you will learn that you are wrong.

      In Gerber you read:
      Among other things Mujir al-Din’s book [he wrote history of Jerusalem and Hebron, in the 1490s. Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali al-Ulaymi, a scholar and resident ofJerusalem (d. 1519)]is notable for its extensive use of the term “Palestine.” The simple fact is that Mujir al-Din calls the country he lives in Palestine (Filastin), a term he repeats 22 times. One other name he uses for the country is the Holy Land, used as frequently as Palestine. No other names, such as Southern Syria, are ever mentioned... The most deliberate treatment of the term “Palestine” comes in a geographical dictionary of the names of towns in the country, where the term Palestine is embedded in the entry for al-Ramla, called in medieval times Ramlat Falastin. Talking about al-Ramla, Mujir notes that Falastin is also the name of the country.
      That the book is not only about Jerusalem but about Palestine is clear from the geographical dictionary, which gives a historical summary of towns, ranging from Gaza in the South to Nablus in the North. It is again an undeclared history of Palestine. What area did he have in mind when speaking about Palestine? It stretched from Anaj, a point near al-Arish, to Lajjun, south of the Esdraelon valley. It was thus clearly equivalent to the Jund Filastin of classical Islam.
      The next writer to use the name of whom we have any knowledge lived two and half centuries after Mujir al-Din. This was another remarkable person, Khayr al-Din al-Ramli, an independent mufti and legal scholar in al-Ramla in the seventeenth century, who left for posterity a most important collection of fatwas...Nor was Khayr al-Din al-Ramli an obscure personality. Quite the reverse: all legal jurists from Syria and Palestine after the seventeenth century used his material intensively, and unquestionably knew every fatwa in it inside out.All this information becomes important if we bear in mind that on several occasions Khayr al-Din al-Ramli calls the country he was living in Palestine, and unquestionably assumes that his readers do likewise. What is even more remarkable is his use of the term “the country” and even “our country” (biladuna), possibly meaning that he had in mind some sort of a loose community focused around that term.
      Another Palestinian writer of the seventeenth century who used Filastin to name his country was Salih b. Ahmad al-Timurtashi, who wrote a fadail (Merits) book titled “The Complete Knowledge of the Limits of the Holy Land and Palestine and Syria (Sham)"... Palestine was not automatically or necessarily part of Syria.
      According to Haim Gerber this all is proof that the name was commonly used by the population of the area. "The term Jund Filastin or “the administrative region of Palestine” was current in Arab parlance from some time after the establishment of Muslim rule in the Fertile Crescent in the mid-seventh century until 1250. But when the Mamluk dynasty assumed power in Egypt and Syria-Palestine it changed the administrative nomenclature altogether, dropping the term Palestine from usage. The Ottomans followed suit, and the name was never again used officially until the time of the Mandate. While the term was in administrative use it was also part and parcel of popular usage. The people dropped the Jund and called the country where they lived “Filastin.” Obviously, only the common people could bring about such a situation".

      You should also read about Medieval Praise Literature is one early place where Palestine is often referred to as a Holy Land- In Gerber's book or in A. Elad, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, Brill, New York 1995.

      Another Mufti Hasan al-Husayni (XVIII/XIX) also used names: Palestine and Holy Land. As Mufti he served as a judge for the whole of Palestine. He gave judgments and opinions for cities such as Jaffa, Gaza, Akko, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus. He believed that the law must be consistent with national(bilad).

      In 1911- it was used by Isa al-Isa as the name of his newly founded
      newspaper.
      Khalil Totah (historian), who together with'Umar Salih al-Barghuti (lawyer and nationalist)wrote "Tarih Filastin"History of Palestine in 1922.
      In 1923 Sabri Sarif'Abd al-Hadi, a geography teacher in Nablus, published a work entitled "Ǧuḡrāfiyyat Sūriyya Filasṭīn wa at-Ṭabi'iyya" (Natural Geography of Syria and Palestine).
      Totah wrote in 1921: „Ǧuḡrāfiyyat Filasṭīn”
      Jurji Habib Hanania-established an association called Filasṭīn al-Fatāt (read in: "Jurji Habib Hanania History of the Earliest Press in Palestine, 1908-1914, „The Jerusalem Quarterly").

      In the late 1920’s the Palestinian community in Santiago in Chile sent several letters to Filastin’s editor informing him about of a young wrestler and boxer who left Palestine for Chile at the age of 20 – Abdel-Rahman al-Jizawi became a major national symbol for Palestine in that decade.Al-Jizawi demonstrated great feats of strength – he was able to bend metal bars and challenged and defeated an Italian wrestler 20 kilograms above his weight class. His Arab fans went wild that day, carrying him on their shoulders and chanting, “Long live Palestine, Long live the Arabs, Long live al-Jizawi.” The wrestler was lauded in Chilean newspapers and he soon became a household name- in: I. Khalidi, The Coverage of Sports News in „Filastin” 1911-1948, „The Jerusalem Quarterly”.

      More about Palestinian press and their languauge read:R. Khalidi, Palestinian Identity
      Read also: B. Abu-Manneh, The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century, [in:] The Israel/Palestine Question,ed. I. Pappe, Routledge, London 1999
      J. Bussow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1972-1908, Brill, Leiden 2011
      There you will read about: "vilayet Filastin" (in Rashid Khalidi, Palestinain Identity, page 151) which was used next to: "Kuds-i Serif Eyaleti".
      Also in Doumani, Rediscovering Palestine...

      There are of course many other examples but the name was in popular use for a very long time, and even Ottomans used them. Read: Gerber's book and Salim Tamari: Shifting Ottoman Conceptions of Palestine in Jerusalem Quarterly.

      It was used in varous docs, fatwas, press, sports, textbooks, history book (written by Palestinians), poems, etc. LONG BEFORE your 1948 date....

      So you are wrong with your statement.

  • Happy holidays from the IDF
  • From Hillel to Sabeel: The path to unlearning Zionism
    • This sentence: "Mount Scopus became a UN protected Israeli exclave within Jordanian-administered territory until the Six-Day War in 1967" has no sense whatsoever and is just wrong.
      EXPLANATION:
      Mount Scopus was a demilitarized zone!!! It wasn't an Israeli exclave since in the respective areas armed Arab and Jewish civilian police were placed on duty under the United Nations Commander. I hope you see the difference!
      According to 7 July 1948 Agreement for the Demilitarization of Mount Scopus Area: the "area as delineated on the attached map will be assigned to United Nations protection until hostilities cease or a new agreement is entered upon. It shall include the areas designated as Hadassah Hospital, Hebrew University, Augusta Victoria and the Arab village of Issawiya, The United Nations agrees to become a signatory to this document by representation through the Senior Observer in the Jerusalem area and the Chairman of the Truce Commission. It therefore accepts responsibility for the security of this area ...".
      ALSO: "There shall be a no-man’s-land location extending for approximately 200 yards along the main road between the Augusta Victoria and Hebrew University buildings, with suitable check-posts established at each end. Other check-posts will be established on the perimeter of the zone under protection, and all parties agree that access desired should be sought along the main road via the United Nations check-posts as established by the United Nations Commander".

      IMPORTANT: "In their respective areas armed Arab and Jewish civilian police will be placed on duty under the United Nations Commander. The United Nations flag will fly on the main buildings".

      The demilitarized zone was supposed to be under the direct control of the Chief of Staff of UNTSO and that the civilian policemen (Arab and Jewish) who were to guard Arab and Jewish properties respectively in the zone, were supposed to obey his orders.
      But in actual practice, this was not the case in the Jeowsh section since the agreement of July 7, 1948 was signed. Although the UN flag flew over the buildings, UN personel were not permitted to come anywhere close to the "israel's zone". Arab farmers were fired upon, pedestrians were harassed (especially those near the Isawiya village). For example (one of many) in autumn of 1957 UN aerial photos revealed that Israelis were fortifying what was supposed to be a demilitarized zone, they also barred UN observers from inspecting it. You can read more about it in "Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine", by Sami Hadawi.

      There was also problem with the so called “7 July” and “21 July” lines. As Major-General Carl Carlsson von Horn explaines: "There are two maps, showing different limits for the Mount Scopus Demilitarized Zone. On the Israel side, it is considered that the valid map - that which is referred to in the first paragraph of the 7 July 1948 Agreement - is a map “SCOPUS - UN” dated 8 July 1948 and initialled F.M.B. (the initials of Mr. Begley, a member of the United Nations Secretariat, then on the Mediator's staff, who assisted in the drafting of the Agreement, though he DID NOT SIGN IT.) On the Jordan side, it is considered that the valid map is the more CAREFULLY DELINEATED MAP of the truce lines in the Jerusalem area, initialled by the Arab Commander and by Mr. Begley, WHO together with the Israel Commander and the Chairman of the UN Truce Commission SIGNED the 21 July 1948 Agreement “between Arab and Jewish Military Commanders” concerning “the method of controlling no-man's-land and other details of the Truce commencing 17 July 1948". This map was not initialled by the Jewish Military Commander and Israel does not accept its delimitation of the demilitarized area of Mount Scopus". So: "there are on Mount Scopus sectors which Israel considers as being within the Demilitarized Zone and Jordan in Jordanian-controlled territory". Israel used this problem to expand its zone, to harass Palestinians, etc:

      As Major-General Carl Carlsson von Horn, Chief of Staff of the UNTSO writes in his report:
      "A fence surrounded - and still surrounds - the Jewish buildings, and the main problem for the Chief of Staff’s representative was then to prevent conflicts resulting from the desire of Arab civilians to cultivate land, pick olives or repair a house in the immediate vicinity of that fence, which separated them from the buildings guarded and inhabited by the Jewish police and civilians referred to in paragraph 4 of the 7 July 1948 Agreement. The Chief of Staff’s representative has continued up to now to request Arabs not to work closer than approximately fifty metres from the fence, unless he could secure from the Israel police the assurance that there would be no interference with the projected work."

      77."The houses referred to in the preceding paragraph are in a row (located outside the fence, close to the Hadassah building), from north to south. Those to the north are close to the road which, skirting round the British War Cemetery and running north of the Hadassah building, has for the last ten years been used by the villagers of Issawiya going to or returning from Jerusalem. 4/ When the Israeli police patrols the area of the seven houses, it also often patrols the area of the road used by the villagers. The latter have repeatedly complained that the Israeli police had been frightening or insulting Arab women. On 22 May 1958, I drew the Israel Foreign Ministry’s attention to specific complaints alleging that on two successive days Arab women drawing water from a well, on the northern side of the road to Issawiya, had been insulted and frightened. On 23 May, the allegations were denied by the Israel Foreign Ministry. On 24 May, Lt.-Colonel G.A. Flint visited Issawiya and reported that he had found the villagers visibly upset, “more so than on other occasions”, by what they referred to as insults to women".

      78."The inhabitants of Issawiya also resent the fact that Israel patrols have stopped traffic on the road referred to in the preceding paragraph. 5/ (The villagers have also been prevented from repairing this road on the ground that it was in the “Israeli Sector”.)".

      In connexion with the stoppage of traffic, it may be noted that there have been two previous attempts by the Israel police to limit or stop Arab traffic on the Issawiya-Jerusalem road. One was early in June 1954. The other started with the establishment of a road block on 17 February 1955. Major-General E.L.M. Burns requested the “rescission of any orders which may have been issued to stop vehicles other than UN vehicles attempting to use the road and particularly the rescission of orders to use road block, force and arms to effect this”. The Israel police road block was removed on 27 March 1955.

      81. When the Israel police sends from the Hadassah or Hebrew university armed patrols to control certain areas, including, as has recently happened, areas between the “7 July” and “21 July” lines, this action is resented by the Arab farmers or shepherds whose activities are interfered with and whose “women and children are frightened”. The Jordanian authorities and people also resent what they consider as an attempt by Israel to assert by such armed patrolling the validity of alleged rights based on the “7 July” map. These three factors: assertion by means of armed patrol of a right to control “Israel areas” and the activities of Arab villagers in these areas; resentment of the Arab villagers; resentment of the Jordanian authorities and people, have contributed to the building up of tension which culminated in the 26 May incident.

      83.The first complaint alleging Israeli patrolling on the western slopes of Mount Scopus, between the “7 July” and “21 July” lines, dates back to January 1954, when an Arab farmer reported that he had been threatened and forced to leave the field and he was ploughing to the south-west of the Hadassah building.

      There were problems with the Eastern area of Mount Scopus where Salomons’ Garden (Ras es Sullam) is located. Israel, on the basis of the “7 July 1948 map”, considered that the area was in the “Jewish section of the Demilitarized Zone”, while Jordan, on the basis of the “21 July 1948 map” considered that it was not in the Demilitarized Zone, but in Jordanian-controlled territory.

      In paragraph 87: On 2 August that on that day and on the two preceding days Israel policemen had approached an occupied cave on the Southern outskirts of Issawyia at GR 1738 1337, north of Ras es Sullam (Salomons’ Garden). It was further alleged that the Israeli police observed the area, while Arab children and women were crying, then returned to the Hebrew University. On 2 August, a UN observer was shown behind the cave heel prints possibly made by military type boots. Lt.-Colonel Flint, accompanied by the UN Observer, spoke about the Arab allegations to the commander of the Israel police. The latter denied that his men had gone to the area.

      88. Following a complaint alleging that the same area had been patrolled on 28 August and every day during the preceding week, a UN military observer went to the caves on 29 August. While he was there, he saw four Israeli policemen come downhill from the vicinity of the Laboratory. He went to meet the policemen who told him they had been sent by their chief and walked on.

      So NO: That territory wasn't located as you wrote in territory nominally under Israeli control and it WASN'T protected from the Jordanian occupation by the UN!!
      I REPEAT:
      It was a demilitarized zone. There were areas with armed Arab and Jewish civilian police on duty under the United Nations Commander. The United Nations flag flew on the main buildings!!! It was under UN protection until hostilities would cease or a new agreement was entered upon!! (It was protected from BOTH Israel and Jordan by the UN). But the reality again was more complicated due to the “map controversy” as described above...

  • A point by point response to Alan Dershowitz’s 'Ten Reasons Why The BDS Movement Is Immoral'
    • Hello:) You can also try this:
      CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

      Dalia Gavrieli-Nuri: Saying "War", Thinking "Victory"—The Mythmaking Surrounding Israel's 1967 Victory, Israel Studies - Volume 15, Number 1, Spring 2010, pp. 95-114

      “Pre-emptive War:” the Six Day War Revisited Ersun N. Kurtulus:
      The article presents a critical assessment of the widespread conceptualization of the June 1967 War between Israel and its neighboring Arab states as a pre-emp-tive war both in academic and non-academic writing. Tracing the origins of the notion of pre-emptive war to international law, the article identifies three necessary conditions for such a war to be classified as pre-emptive: acute crisis combined with high alert levels; vulnerable offensive weapons; and strategic parity as regards to offensive capabilities. On the basis of a re-interpretation of the evidence produced by previous research, this article argues that the circumstances surrounding the Six Day War did not fulfill some of these necessary conditions.
      This conclusion also is supported by evidence related to the Israeli decision to
      launch a first strike.

      https://kar.kent.ac.uk/1547/1/Kurtulus.pdf

  • Netanyahu's 'battle for Jerusalem' can't end well for any of us
    • Jon,
      Yes, of course, thank you :)

    • Jon,
      Yes, of course, thank you :)

    • Jon,
      It all comes down to methodology :) Your screenshot shows that in 1989 there were about 41,000 Jews, the city itself had 60,000. Is there a methodology provided? Ottomans registered only their citizens, other data were mostly regional not urban. If you compare his figures with other- some of them are available in Kark and Oren-Nordheim; U.O.Schmelz; Justin McCarthy books; you will see the big difference between their various sources and his. As I mentioned, Scholch writes that there was a tendency by Zionist scholars (not only) to exaggerate the undercount of non-Ottoman residents in Jerusalem (for example Arthur Ruppin works) and Ottoman censuses had their own methodological problems. There are many incompatible data (different geographical areas and dates taken into account, etc). I would be careful with basing any firm statement on one book, its data is quite different, comparing to others- about that period. About all that read also Roberto Mazza, Michael Dumper, Gudrun Kramer, Yuval Ben-Bassat, and the above mentioned. Also I will repeat: THAT THE INCREASE IN JEWISH POPULATION DIDN'T LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN JEWISH LAND-OWNERSHIP. PALESTINIAN ARABS OWNED MOST OF THE LAND IN AND AROUND JERUSALEM :)
      About those new neighborhoods read Dumper- or earlier post ;] At that time those neighborhoods were new, not that much populated, and the question is: if he considered them as part of the city itself or not (+ Arab neighborhoods too), how did he get to his estimates, etc., because his data is quite different from the other ones that can be found...

    • Tree- your post doesn't have a reply button, so I am replying here: Thank you very much :) Great answer btw! It is worth mentioning that after Peel commission Zionists (not only Gurion) admitted that they planned to make way for their own vision of a "Jewish state": for example "population transfers", etc.; zionist conference at Biltmore hotel is another example of that old strategy (as you and Hostage pointed out: Jews were planning the military conquest of Palestine ever since the mid-1930s). Besides, the UN partition plan envisioned that there would be a Palestinian Arab majority in the "Jewish" part (Arabs=509.780, Jews= 499.020 in Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. Report of Sub-Committee 2: unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf on pade 41)- Zionists knew that very well... Palestinian support for the partition wouldn't change much regarding Zionist political strategy... Plus, right after the vote Jews attacked Palestinian villages and people. Gurion even ordered to attack the villages that signed a non-aggression pact- he wanted to provoke Palestinians to fight (in Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel).
      I miss Hostage too, hope he is ok!:)

    • to jon s:
      Till this very day there are conflicting estimates regarding Jerusalem population at the very end of XIX century and XX. So please don't state that Jews at the end of XIX century were 100% the majority of the Jerusalem population. It would be more accurate if you wrote that at the beginning of XX century...(still not 100% sure).
      The Ottoman census of 1878 indicated for the Jerusalem, Nablus, and Acre districts that Muslim population= 403,795= 85.5%; Christian=43,659=9.2%; Jewish=15,001=3.2%; Jewish (Foreign-born)= Est. 10,000=2.1%. It must be remebered that many Palestinians avoided the Turkish census (the same problem was the Brit.census) for these reasons mainly: a) to avoid taxes, b) to avoid military conscription. As non-Muslims were concerned there were better info about Jews then Christians, even though they were far more numerus (Gudrun Kramer).
      In 1806 in Jerusalem there were: 2,000 Jews; 4,000 Muslims; Christians 2,774(Sharkansky). In 1832: Jews=4,000; Muslims= 13,000; Christians=3,560(Kark and Oren-Nordheim). Ottoman censuses typically under-counted women and children- they made adjustments later if necesssary. Schmelz writes that in 1905 Ottoman census (counted only Ottoman citizens- Jews and many Christians were not Ottoman citizens) Jews= little over 13,000 Muslims+Christians= about 19,000. He used statistics available for the Jerusalem region, not for the urban population.
      Oh and don't forget as Scholch writes that there was a tendency by Zionist scholars to exaggerate the undercount of non-Ottoman residents in Jerusalem in order to inflate the size of the Jewish population.
      The Brit.census of Palestine (1922) shows that Jews were only a slight majority- and still there are problems with its methodology, etc.
      As Michael Dumper writes:
      The population of the city increased from 1922 to 1946 from 62,000 to 164,000 with approximately 55–60 percent being Jewish. Elsewhere I have argued that these figures and the proportions within them of Palestinian Arabs and Jews are misleading [in: Michael Dumper, The Politics of Jerusalem Since 1967]. There was, for example, an overcounting of new Jewish immigrants who first came to Jerusalem then moved to Tel Aviv and an undercounting of Palestinians whose villages were excluded from the population count as a result of falling outside the municipal borders. What is also of interest is the segregated distribution of the population. Most Jews lived in the new northern and western parts of the city, in what became known as the New City. By 1947 it was estimated that only 2percent of the Jews of the city lived in the walled Old City. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT ONE MAY ASK? WELL...(as Dumper writes):
      During the closing years of the Ottoman Empire, congestion and unsanitary conditions inside the walls led to a rapid increase in the population outside the walls and the spread of urban areas. During the British Mandate period, from 1922–1948, this extramural expansion was recognized and new borders were designated to include a larger area of the walled city’s environs.
      What was controversial in these British changes is a pattern that has been followed to this day, which perhaps is also common to other contested cities— the designation of borders to defend or promote the interests of a particular ethnic or religious group in the city. The British borders swung in a wide arc west of the city to incorporate the new housing estates established by Jewish and Zionist settlers. In contrast, while large numbers of new settlers were being incorporated into the city limits, in the east the municipal borders slid between the walls of the city and the Palestinian villages virtually abutting the walls in order to exclude them. The prime intention of this blatant gerrymandering of the borders was to ensure an electoral advantage of the Jewish community of the city over its Palestinian residents- The rest you can read in: JERUSALEM UNBOUND, by MICHAEL DUMPER.http://books.google.com/books?id=hvQYBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=What+was+controversial+in+these+British+changes+is+a+pattern+that+has+been+followed+to+this+day,+which+perhaps+is+also+common+to+other+contested+cities%E2%80%94+the+designation+of+borders+to+defend+or+promote+the+interests+of+a+particular+ethnic+or+religious+group+in+the+city.+The+British+borders+swung+in+a+wide+arc+west+of+the+city+to+incorporate+the+new+housing+estates+established+by+Jewish+and+Zionist+settlers.&source=bl&ots=5t8MWoRIaO&sig=kV-__3FW-vzW3sSyO4etHYFSZ6E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NTRyVIjiAsWQigKH6oDwBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=What%20was%20controversial%20in%20these%20British%20changes%20is%20a%20pattern%20that%20has%20been%20followed%20to%20this%20day%2C%20which%20perhaps%20is%20also%20common%20to%20other%20contested%20cities%E2%80%94%20the%20designation%20of%20borders%20to%20defend%20or%20promote%20the%20interests%20of%20a%20particular%20ethnic%20or%20religious%20group%20in%20the%20city.%20The%20British%20borders%20swung%20in%20a%20wide%20arc%20west%20of%20the%20city%20to%20incorporate%20the%20new%20housing%20estates%20established%20by%20Jewish%20and%20Zionist%20settlers.&f=false
      So the precise figures are difficult to establish. REMEMBER THAT THE INCREASE IN JEWISH POPULATION DIDN'T LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN JEWISH LAND-OWNERSHIP. PALESTINIAN ARABS OWNED MOST OF THE LAND IN AND AROUND JERUSALEM!!!
      All in all we have many incompatible data (different geographical areas and dates taken into account, etc). Not to mention that many accepted population figures are based on Arthur Ruppin works (he was the head of WZO Palestine Office before WWI)- he inflated the number of Jews in Palestine. Read more in: The Politics of Jerusalem Since 1967, by Michael Dumper.
      Or:
      Jerusalem: From the Ottomans to the British, by Roberto Mazza
      McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate- just for start.
      There are new works on Palestine during Ottoman Period- worth reading.

  • 75% of visitors to Israel's Canada Park believe it is located inside the Green Line (it's not)
    • Worth reading for you, Mikhael: https://www.academia.edu/3044248/A_Weeping_on_the_Road_to_Bethlehem_Contestation_over_the_Uses_of_Rachels_Tomb
      A Weeping on the Road to Bethlehem:Contestation over the Uses of Rachel’s Tomb
      This paper examines the case of Rachel’s Tomb, a shrine revered at various times by various combinations of Muslims, Christians and Jews, looking at how the increasingly incommensurate ideas of local inhabitants and immigrant Jews about how the holy place should be approached led initially to a spatial separation within the shrine and then to violent, and exclusive, battles over sectarian (and increasingly‘national’) properties.

  • Death comes to downtown Ramallah
  • Public debate on Zionism sets a crucial precedent
    • Well...you can read this: http://www.pcpsr.org/domestic/2003/nbrowne.pdf
      The Third Draft Constitution for a Palestinian State:Translation and Commentary, byNathan J. Brown.
      About article 7 (about sharia) he writes:
      This article has attracted tremendous attention, but again the impact is far
      more symbolic than practical.
      • First, the article refers not directly to the shari‘a but to the
      “principles of Islamic shari‘a.” This in itself is ambiguous, since
      it is not clear what the “principles” of the Islamic shari‘a are. The
      Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court has wrestled with a
      stronger clause (more on this below) and has decided that only
      shari‘a-based rules “certain as to their authenticity and meaning
      [qat‘ al-ithbat wa-l-dalala]” are relevant. Since so much of the
      Islamic legal tradition consists of debate, analysis, and contrasting
      interpretations and applications, only a very small body of such
      rules can be easily identified.
      • Second, the clause gives no guidance on who is to interpret the
      principles of the Islamic shari‘a. Since it is “a major source for
      legislation,” presumably the legislative branch itself is to draw on
      shari‘a principles when writing laws. Again, with the shari‘a
      presenting not a body of codified law but a quite long and varied
      tradition, it would be difficult to prove that a law does not draw on
      shari‘a principles in some way. In short, this clause should be
      read as an injunction to the legislature to take Islamic law
      seriously rather than an attempt to implement a shari‘a-based
      legal system. It would be virtually impossible to challenge any law
      on the basis of this provision.
      • Third, the drafters of the constitution have deliberately eschewed
      a stronger formulation—making the principles of the Islamic
      shari‘a the rather than a source of legislation. The stronger
      formulation is used in Egypt and there has been pressure for it in
      other Arab states (such as Kuwait). The practical effects even of
      this stronger formulation have been quite limited.
      You can read the rest in that pdf file.

      The PLO Charter provides that ‘Judaism, because it is a divine religion is not a nationality with independent existence.’ (Art. 35 20). As such, Jews who normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion were considered Palestinians. You must remember that "Arab" is is quite an inclusive term, it is not based on religion, race,, etc. It has more to do with culture, especially language (books on Arab nationalism explain this stuff, try R. Khalidi or Suleiman's book on Arab nationalism and language).
      This vision changed totally following the Palestinians’ recognition of Israel. Israel- in line with Zionist beliefs and according to the Law of Return- grants Israeli citizenship to all Jewish men or women as members of the Jewish nation, so after that Jews weren't mentioned per se in the constitution, their rights are guaranteed according to the laws mentioned in the constitution.
      You can read the rest in: "Palestinian Nationality and citizenship current challenges and future perspectives", by Asem Khalil (you can download it).
      Palestinian (draft) constitution is one of the most liberal in the Arab world read: "Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords", by N.J. Brown.
      You must also remember that Palestinians must protect what is being destroyed and threatened by the occupation, their identity is till this day contested, their rights as Palestinian Arabs are being denied for the sake of the "Jewish right" to the land, and as any nation they must somehow react to that, that is why they emphasize their Arabness, etc. It has nothing to do with racism, etc. For decades their docs have emphasized that they distinguish between Zionists and local Jews, who they consider as Palestinians...recognition of Israel made that specific article (about local Jews being Palestinians) unnecessary.... Jews are treated like any other group in the constitution...

  • 'There is no veritable religious freedom here': Postcard from the Christian community in East Jerusalem
    • Walid you write: "During the full British mandate, the terms Judea and Samaria for those provinces were used".

      But there weren't Judea and Samaria provinces.... There was only District of Samaria: Nablus as Headquarters: sub-districts: Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm: in Salman Abu Sitta, Atlas of Palestine 1948, p.12.
      Palestinians didn't use that name, they used Nablus Area or Jabal Nablus, etc (borders more or less the same...). British administration as we all know had a specific relation with Zionists..so no wonder they used their name or in parts their maps to decide the borders of Palestine and its districts....

      British survey: "In the closing days of the Ottoman Empire the area which is now Palestine was divided for the purpose of administration into three Sanjaqs (Districts); the two northern Sanjaqs, those of Acre (corresponding roughly to the present day Districts of Galilee and Haifa) and Nablus (corresponding to the present day District of Samaria)" in: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6442.html
      See The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947, by Gideon Biger- he writes about Zionists that pushed their territorial plans, how British officials used them (or not), and how the borders of the district were created... Bible was also used by the British as a reference...

      In the mid-nineteenth century, the social space of previous hit Jabal Nablus next hit encompassed close to 300 villages, whose economic, social and, to a lesser extent, political life was more closely tied to the city of Nablus than to other urban centers. These villages filled a space stretching along the coastal plains from Haifa and Jaffa in the west to the Ajlun and Balqa regions beyond the River Jordan in the east and from the Galilee in the north to the hills of Ramallah and al-Bireh in the south The peasants of these villages farmed some of the richest agricultural lands in Palestine.- In: Rediscovering Palestine, by Beshara Doumani+ map no 2.

      At Jerico there weren't only "clan chiefs" as you wrote....There were mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General, military governors of all the districts, and other notables= several thousand ppl. The All-Palestine Government at that time was weak and in shambles.... Couldn't do much also thaks to other Arab states meddling (especially Egypt).

      **The formal announcement of the creation of a new Palestinian government came Sept. 22, 1948. The administrative center was in Gaza. (Egypt controlled it). The establishment of the government was mainly related to the opposition to Transjordan's territorial policy Transjordan and with the desire to protect the territorial claims of neighboring Arab states. That new government was derived from Arab Executive which was renamed in January 1947 to Arab Higher Committee (again) and included members who were favorable to Amin (In May 1946, Hajj Amin al-Husayni arrived in Cairo. Arab League ordered to resolve the Arab Higher Committee and established a new Arab High Executive, headed by mufti). So the new gov headed by mufti had its own representational problems...Egypt and other states didn't give Amin much power... Read: Shlaim, The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza or Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists and Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine, by Weldon Matthews. Oh and Iraq didn't aproove the annexation (IT WASN'T ANNEXATION IN REALITY, see: link to http://www.passia.org/publications/information_papers/Jordan-Disengagement-eng.htm) all the way....

    • Thank you for replying him! I didn't have the time... great post talknic :) There is an interesting article: The Jordanian Disengagement: Causes and Effects in: http://www.passia.org/publications/information_papers/Jordan-Disengagement-eng.htm

  • 'We are not second class citizens, we are fifth class citizens': Interview with Educational Bookshop owner Mahmoud Muna
  • When Yitzhak Rabin met Marek Edelman: A story for Holocaust Remembrance Day
    • Well... that can be said about any other group, nation, or individual... He also said this: "To be a Jew means always being with the oppressed and never the oppressors". That is why he criticized Israel: "standing up for oneself" doesn't mean being an oppressor, and he saw the difference.
      "In old age, he was not afraid to speak up for the Palestinians when he felt that the Jewish self-defence for which he had fought was in danger of crossing the line into oppression": http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100012403/marek-edelman-death-of-a-great-man/
      "In the summer of 2002, Edelman, still going strong, intervened in Israel's show trial of the now jailed Palestinian resistance leader, Marwan Barghouti. He wrote a letter of solidarity to the Palestinian movement, and though he criticised the suicide bombers, its tone infuriated the Israeli government and its press. Edelman had always resented Israel's claim on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as a symbol of Jewish liberation. Now he said this belonged to the Palestinians.
      He addressed his letter to the Palestinian ZOB, "commanders of the Palestinian military, paramilitary and partisan operations – to all the soldiers of the Palestinian fighting organisations". The old Jewish anti-Nazi Ghetto fighter had placed his immense moral authority at the disposable of the only side he deemed worthy of it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/marek-edelman-last-surviving-leader-of-the-1943-warsaw-ghetto-uprising-against-the-nazis-1798644.html
      So he knew the difference between "standing up for oneself" and being an oppressor- some ppl don't see the diff (or don't want to see it) and try to hide oppression behind the mask of "self-defence".

      Don't try to blur that fact about him....

  • Apartheid label will stick
    • Sorry for the delay- didn't have the time to do it earlier, and now I can't reply in the original thread, so I am doing it here, hope you don't mind...
      About the relation between Palestinian State, PLO and PNA
      What you wrote doesn't explain this Palestinian issues (I repeat):
      Dr Hanna Eisa, a Palestinian professor and expert in international law:
      "The PNA was created following the Oslo Accords signed between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in 1994. “An end to the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian Territories is what really matters, not the change of the names - which can also create serious problems from a legal perspective,” he said.
      From a legal perspective, Dr Eisa said that Palestinian presidential decree has essentially abolish the PNA. “The question now is that are we ready to abolish the PNA TOTALLY? (my emphasis)” he asked.
      “The relevant presidential decree should therefore be followed by another one that abolishes the PNA and announces an immediate end to the Oslo Accords,” he stressed.
      http://m.gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/israel-rejects-state-of-palestine-passports-1.1129025

      What I write here in not about which institution is an anachronism, but that till this day there are problems with the "PA" and PLO...the "PA" issue didn't disappear, and still it demands serious work on the Palestinian side to deal with the issue, to get rid of it once and for all.

      That is why Abbas said he will dissolve the PA and disband Palestinian security forces operating in the West Bank if peace negotiations with Israel fail. I think Yedioth Ahronoth reported that citing Palestinian sources... or http://www.timesofisrael.com/if-talks-fail-abbas-said-to-be-weighing-dissolution-of-oslo-pa/
      Palestinian leaders call for 'liberation' from Oslo Accords, http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=519812 well that is old news from 2012

      And again US intervenes in this matter:US WARNS PALESTINIANS NOT TO DISMANTLE PA
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.586587
      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511739,00.html

      Erekat: Palestinians have no intention of dismantling PA
      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511939,00.html

      Why the White House and Tel Aviv Fear the Dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Reconciliation
      http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/23/why-the-white-house-and-tel-aviv-fear-the-dismantling-of-the-palestinian-authority-and-palestinian-reconciliation/

      AND:
      The PLO is the independent body who is the legal representative of the Palestinian People, and its presence, functions and actions are independent of those of the PA. The PA on the other hand, receives its legitimacy and mandate from the PLO and the agreements with Israel. All of the significant agreements with Israel were signed by the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian People, THE IMPLEMENTATION was however carried out by the PA. Since the PA is subordinate to the PLO, and it receives its legitimacy from it, and since there is a widespread recognition of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian People, it could be said that the PLO is the most senior body, and it is the body that is authorized to negotiate and sign a peace treaty, and that the PA is only a means or an arm of the PLO to bring about a smooth transfer of powers to a future Palestinian State. The dissolving of the PA does not affect the existence or the independence of the PLO. ON THE OTHER HAND, the PA is restricted to act in the areas and the fields that were explicitly transferred to it from Israel by virtue of the agreements.
      http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/201218205949656112.html

      As the Palestinian professor and expert in international law (Eisa) asked:The question now is that are we ready to abolish the PNA TOTALLY? THE PNA WAS REPLACED NOT ABOLISHED ENTIRELY, and that is why Abbas and Erekat said what they said about it, and why the US reacted the way it did. The Oslo Agreements despite their failure weren't abolished by the Palestinians, that is why they say what they say about it now. That is why Palestinians had to shift from PLO to PA even after the deadline passed for creating the state...As John V. Whitbeck says ( international lawyer who has served as a legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel): president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, signed "Decree No. 1 for the year 2013 BUT as he says the PNA has been ["only"] absorbed and replaced by the State of Palestine NOT ABOLISHED- THAT IS WHY ABBAS SAID HE WILL DISSOLVE THE PA AND DISBAND PAL. SECURITY FORCES OPERATING IN THE WEST BANK IF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL FAIL- Palestinian State inherited the PA's burdens, because ot only changed the name and replaced the PA, it didn't abolished TOTALLY the the PA and its institutions- as Eisa said.

      The establishment of a 'State of Palestine' was proclaimed with the Algiers Declaration of 15 November 1988 and it was recognized by many former communist states and developing countries which entered into diplomatic relations with the representatives of this state. HOWEVER, this 'State of Palestine' does not fulfill one of the essential criteria under international law for the existence of a state because there IS NO EFFECTIVE SOVEREIGN CONTROL over the territory and population claimed to form the basis of the 'State of Palestine'.This does not mean that the Israel-PLO agreements cannot be treaties under international law. It is true that the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties only applies to treaties concluded between states. But that does not affect, as expressly acknowledged in Article 3 of the Convention, the legal validity of, and the application of international rules on the law of treaties to, agreements concluded between states and other 'subjects of international law'. Independently of the attitude taken by Israel towards the PLO in the past, in international practice the latter has become recognized as a national liberation movement with the right to self-determination, which, although it does not exercise effective territorial jurisdiction, is a partial subject of international law with the legal capacity to maintain diplomatic relations with states and international organizations recognizing it and to conclude treaties. As a partial subject of international law, the PLO is not equal to a state, but that does not affect the validity of a treaty it concludes with a state.
      http://ejil.org/pdfs/7/4/1389.pdf

      So the PLO had NO EFFECTIVE SOVEREIGN CONTROL over the territory, but the PNA had- at least to some extent, we all know about the problems with the zones A, B and C. THAT is WHY all of the significant agreements with Israel were signed by the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian People, BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION was however carried out by the PA, and it worked even after the Oslo failed, despite the fact that the PA receives its legitimacy and mandate from the PLO- PLO NEVER ABOLISHED PNA- THAT IS WHAT ABBAS AND EREKAT ARE REFERING TO AND AS WAS WRITTEN BEFORE: PA was only a means or an arm of the PLO to bring about a smooth transfer of powers to a future Palestinian State- BUT PLO HASN'T DONE THAT PROPERLY YET AS EISA SAID AND OTHERS. THE PALESTINIAN STATE ONLY REPLACED WHAT WAS BEFORE, the old problems remained.

      If Palestinians say themselves there is still work to do about it all, and Abbas and others use this ambiguous situation so the issue isn't resolved yet...

  • Two-state solution is 'psychological solution' allowing people to take themselves off the moral hook -- Telhami
    • "PA officially changes name to State of Palestine’"- yes I know that.
      "The separation of powers and competencies between the PLO and PA were imposed by the Israelis under the terms of the lapsed Oslo Accords in order to prevent the establishment of a functional government of the State of Palestine."- yes I know that too, it was my point when I said there were problems with them, and Palestinians shifted between them....
      "The fact that people still use the term “PA” simply means they either don’t, or won’t, recognize the State of Palestine. "- Well I didn't write anything about that...but yes Israel still uses "PA" because it doesn't want to recognize the State of Palestine.
      "The PA did not alter the role of the PLO revolutionary council as the provisional state government."- Here I must disagree...the political problems arose because the PA was formed, and there were discussions among Palestinians what to do with PLO (and its great authority) and the institutions of the PA, how to deal with them... It had its impact, that is why:
      "FYI, the Palestinians circumvented the old restrictions by simply “wearing three hats” when they performed their duties and by merging the PLO foreign ministry and negotiations support unit into the PA."- yes I know that too...but as I wrote there were serious discussions about that policy, among Fatah members especially.
      ALSO:
      Dr Hanna Eisa, a Palestinian professor and expert in international law:
      "The PNA was created following the Oslo Accords signed between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in 1994. “An end to the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian Territories is what really matters, not the change of the names - which can also create serious problems from a legal perspective,” he said.
      From a legal perspective, Dr Eisa said that Palestinian presidential decree has essentially abolish the PNA. “The question now is that are we ready to abolish the PNA TOTALLY? (my emphasis)” he asked.
      “The relevant presidential decree should therefore be followed by another one that abolishes the PNA and announces an immediate end to the Oslo Accords,” he stressed.
      http://m.gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/israel-rejects-state-of-palestine-passports-1.1129025

      What I write here in not about which institution is an anachronism, but that till this day there are problems with the "PA" and PLO...the "PA" issue didn't disappear, and still it demands serious work on the Palestinian side to deal with the issue, to get rid of it once and for all.

      That is why Abbas said he will dissolve the PA and disband Palestinian security forces operating in the West Bank if peace negotiations with Israel fail. I think Yedioth Ahronoth reported that citing Palestinian sources... or http://www.timesofisrael.com/if-talks-fail-abbas-said-to-be-weighing-dissolution-of-oslo-pa/
      Palestinian leaders call for 'liberation' from Oslo Accords, http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=519812 well that is old news from 2012

      And again US intervenes in this matter:US WARNS PALESTINIANS NOT TO DISMANTLE PA
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.586587
      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511739,00.html

      Erekat: Palestinians have no intention of dismantling PA
      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511939,00.html

      Why the White House and Tel Aviv Fear the Dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Reconciliation
      http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/23/why-the-white-house-and-tel-aviv-fear-the-dismantling-of-the-palestinian-authority-and-palestinian-reconciliation/

      So the issue is not resolved yet...there are still problems with the whole Oslo thing. That is all I am saying here...

      I am not disagreeing with you about the validity of the PLO, etc. but there is much more to it...and it raises many serious problems...

    • "PA was only the municipal government"- yes but that still doesn't change the fact that there are problems with those institutions... The PNA had territorial and other (like: personal) jurisdictions but it couldn't like the PLO conduct its own foreign relations [since 1974 PLO has represented Palestine at the United Nations]. After the collapse of the Oslo Agreement the situation didn't change.... And till this day this situation isn't completely resolved...
      Brown:
      In 1999 report, “Strengthening Palestinian Public Institutions,” Sayigh and Shikaki concluded that “the difficulty of distinguishing the mandates of PLO and Palestinian Authority institutions has impeded the promotion of key elements of good governance, especially the exercise of constitutional power, transparency and accountability, and
      the rule of law.” The claim may have seemed strange to many readers, since the relationship between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority was a temporary issue, governed by the Oslo Accords, which specified which functions the Palestinian Authority might assume. Although the Oslo Accords had spelled out some aspects of PA operation in detail, the Palestinian Authority in practice had trouble defining its precise relationship with the PLO, and the senior leadership seemed determined to maximize the confusion. For most Palestinians, whatever legitimacy the Palestinian Authority possessed stemmed from the fact that the PLO had granted it, as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Even those who strongly supported the Oslo Accords were reluctant to base PA
      legitimacy on agreements negotiated with Israel. Thus, the PLO was often referred to as the Palestinian Authority’s “source of authority”
      (marja‘iyya) in Palestinian discussions. The effect of this view was to undermine the institutional clarity and accountability of the Palestinian Authority in two ways..... the fuzzy relationship between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority was problematic on the level of institutional culture. The PLO was a loose organization built to represent a widely dispersed population, and its vocabulary was that of a national liberation movement rather than that of an administrative entity. The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, was responsible for running schools and clinics, collecting garbage, issuing identification cards, licensing professionals, and certifying who was needy. For those interested in building the Palestinian Authority into a state, the PLO brought precisely those practices that a well-governed state needed to avoid: secretiveness, patronage, an excessive concentration on security, a stress on revolutionary and ideological rather than professional and technical credentials, and a willingness to be dominated by strong personalities rather than governed by robust institutions. PA reformers might talk dismissively of the PLO on occasion, but they could not call for its abolition as long as the body retained its status both internationally and among Palestinians. Ultimately, however, the problem could not be solved as long as the Palestinian Authority remained an interim body with a restricted purview rather than a full state. Thus one of the major questions that arose in constitutional discussions was how to avoid permanently entrenching the confusions and overlap of institutions characteristic of the interim phase. Constitutional architects, as noted above, worked to incorporate some PLO functions—most notably the representation of diaspora Palestinians—into the prospective state.

      Arafat (and others) used this situation for his own political gain and was criticized even by Fatah members for that.

      We know that Mahmoud Abbas signed applications to join 15 international treaties and conventions. "The issue is how to implement these treaties with the absence of the Palestinian Legislative Council," Siniora added, referring to the Palestinian parliament (PLC) which has not been in session since 2007. The PLC was paralysed after several of its members were imprisoned by Israel, and due to persisting political divisions between the two major Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah.
      For these treaties to be implemented, changes must be made to the national legislation. But since the PLC is defunct, a presidential decree is needed to rule that international instruments take precedence over national legislation. This will bypass the need to resort to the PLC, Siniora said + The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is responsible for holding negotiations and signing agreements with Israel, said it became a signatory to the conventions and treaties because Israel reneged on an agreement to release the last batch of Palestinian detainees on March 29. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/shift-palestinians-join-treaties-2014418111950813313.html
      So for all this to work the 2 institutions must work together. Their relations aren't fully resolved yet.

    • state's institutions are state's institutions, and PLO is sth else. PLO is associated with state's institutions, and the relation between them is murky, but YOU CAN'T MIX THEM! Read: Palestinian Politics After the Oslo Accords: Resuming Arab Palestine by N.J. Brown- he explains the problem with them.... (well PLO and the PNA, but still...). You should listen to your own advice...

  • Registration of Jews and other human beings
    • @Hophmi: but the official stance on what "Jewish nationality" is, is based on halakhic definition of who is a Jew... I know....wikipedia, but now it is sufficient:
      About "Judaism Test",Law of Return, problems with the definition about who a Jew is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F#Judaism_test
      there: "In the registering of "nationality" on Israeli Teudat Zehut ("identity card"), which is administered by the Ministry of the Interior, a person had to meet the halakhic definition to be registered as a "Jew". However, in a number of cases the Supreme Court of Israel has ordered the Interior Ministry to register as Reform and Conservative converts as Jews. The right of people who convert in the Diaspora under Reform or Conservative auspices to make aliyah, or immigrate to Israel and claim citizenship as Jews, is detailed in Israeli law. Until recently, Israeli identity cards had an indication of nationality, and the field was left empty for those who immigrated not solely on the basis of being Jewish (i.e. as a child, grandchild or spouse of a Jew only) to indicate that the person may not be a Jew. Many Israeli citizens who are not recognised by the Rabbinate as Jewish have been issued with Israeli identity cards that do not include their Hebrew calendar birth date.
      Lawsuit challenges Israel’s discriminatory citizenship definition: http://electronicintifada.net/content/lawsuit-challenges-israels-discriminatory-citizenship-definition/8767

      Did you read your own link? or you don't understand the problem it raises there?
      The state's registration which serves as the basis for the data in the Identity Cards still indicates the ethnicity of each person, and this information is available upon request in certain circumstances determined by the registration law.
      An amendment to the Israeli registration law approved by the Knesset in 2007 determines that a Jew may ask to remove the Hebrew date from his entry, and consequently from his Identity Card. This is due to errors that often occur in the registration of the Hebrew date because the Hebrew calendar day starts at sunset and not at midnight. The amendment also introduces an explicit definition for the term "a day according to the Hebrew calendar".

  • Palestinian youth fulfill their 'right of return' to the destroyed village of Iqrit
    • Dude... You wrote: "ORIGINAL"- that is false, and you wrote as if from the start only Jews lived there and then were replaced- also not true... and the "Yossy deman Yoqart" is mainly known from religious scriptures... Hebrew names are derived mainly from the Biblie or other scriptures or are made "Hebrew-like" from Arabic- that is why I wrote what I wrote.

      I will show you now-thanks for mentioning the village Peqi'in btw- how modern ethnic divisions work, which are based on nationalist narration. There is a Haaretz article about that village :) The villagers actually didn't document it, it was done for them by researches from Ben Zvi Institute. DOCUMENTED- how? are there actual DOCUMENTS that are that old? Where are they now? How were there preserved?, etc. Why modern archaeologists don't use them for the research about that period? In any case, I didn't read about any other sources and materials used for studying that period- and those docs would be awesome!.... weird ... they would be very helpful, because researchers are struggling with the lack of substantial research sources ...

      If u read my previous post, you will see the problem with cultural assimilation, migrations, etc. Margalit Zinati- 81 year old resident of this Druze village before the researches came saw herself as Arab, after they came she said: Ben Zvi researchers 'helped me know that I am a Jew, not an Arab,'- well isn't that nice, eh? Poor women lived in a lie all her life! Her family too and ppl before them! Her traditions that they were analizing are in fact of various origins, but the researches give them only one meaning (Jewish)....

      People MIX CULTURE WITH BIOLOGY- that is often a bad choice to create an identity, historical narration, etc. The article says that the village became a Zionist symbol- and that is what it is. It is not about ppl, their history, etc. but about proper narration and its proper use. So they didn't come for her, and her story and her idea about herself, they twisted it to fit the main Zionist narration, which doesn't like mixing "Arab" elements with "Jewsish" ones...

      NEXT: Hebron- I hope you will read Hillel Cohen's book about Hebron in 1929!! Why didn't you mention that MORE Jews were saved then killed? Do you know about Slobodka yeshiva there and what they were doing there, even to local Jews? What happened in Hebron was the result of the Zionist politics over the years- I am mentioning this to explain why it happened NOT to justify it, since you accused Hebron inhabitants of attacking Jews just because they were Jews- that is a LIE and actually a blood libel.

      I wrote down once this information:"1907, few months before Jaffa clashes, when the VIII Zionist congress sent Arthur Ruppin with the aim to create “a Jewish milieu and of a closed Jewish economy, in which producers, consumers and middlemen shall all be Jewish”.The ashkenazi of the slobdoka yeshiva applied this in their “religious attitude”, excluding Pals and SEPHARDI alike. At that point what for centuries has been a quite good cooperation between jews and arab-pals in hebron turned into a nationalist competition full of racism and hatred. to analyze what happened in hebron without analyzing the slobdoka mentality is superficial and misleading."AND IT MUST BE ADDED THAT:
      Arabs were killed in Mea Shearim + members of the Oun family were murdered in Jerusalem the day before, and reports like this reached Hebron, as sources testify: Cafferata's evidence as the only official eyewitness before the Investigating Commission that 'The Hebron disturbances started only when the report on the murdering of an isolated Arab family in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem reached the town + Susan Silsby Boyle,Betrayal Of Palestine: The Story Of George Antonius, Westview Press, 2001. Some Zionists tried to challange Cafferata's history, but it didn't go well in the long run. READ also Tom Segev book. ADDING ALSO:
      agressive Zionist stances in Hebron (Jerusalem and other cities)- read the history of Rabbi Baruch Kaplan who was a student at the Hebron Yeshiva while the massacre took place- he shows what Zionist did, claimed in public (anti-arab propaganda, etc). There were attacks by Zionist earlier also in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc.

      Read about their racist policy towards "Arab" workers- Z. Lockman writes about this. Practically from the start Zionists implemented a anti-arab policy, which was visible in Hebron for years and disrupted the coexistance of ppl in that city. Yuval's Ben-Bassat book on late Ottoman times sheds more light even about that period. But you write as if Zionist in Palestine didn't do anything anti-arab, didn't kill, throw out peasants (Ben-Bassat), didn't promote anti-arab propaganda and actions, etc, and they did that for years against the local people...-one would consider them important factors, no?
      + You do know that counting massacres: Jews committed more on Pals, right? It wasn't self-defence, since massacres aren't done for self-defence! So there is no need whitewashing them...

      Jaffa, Nazareth, Haifa, Akka (those are the proper names actually), etc- all examples of ethnic cleansing and racism (obviously you don't know what Zionist did to them)- till this day!! From erasing Arabic names of the cities and destroying their heritage (like in Jaffa) to promoting clearly anti-arab policy in Nazareth and other cities. So no- most Jews aren't ok towards "Palestinian- Arabs"- you know it wouldn't kill you to call them Palestinians, not just Arabs- they have their own identity if you want to admit it or not. Read also Meron Rapoport's article: History Erased!!!

      You also should read more about local Palestinian Jews, who often were anti-Zionist, local rabbis in public preached about the danger coming from Zionists (especially in the 20s and 30's), even the term "sabra" was used by local Jews as a negative term for new immigrants! Read about late Ottoman period- how local Jews interacted with other Palestinians- Zionists didn't care much about local Jews... Read the books by Salim Tamari or Yuval Ben-Bassat "Late Ottoman Palestine". Also what was considered by Zionist as "Jewish" and "Arab" changed, because at first "Arab/Muslim- Palestinians" were seen as descendants of ancient peoples (for example the work by Ben Gurion and Ben Zvi), later it changed when they didn't accept the Zionist policy and narratives. As you can see what is called "Jewish" and "Arab" is very fluid, and the same goes for ancient times- today lots of traditional narration about ancient times is now being reconsidered, basing on new evidence. The case of that old lady is only one of many proofs of that. And don't use the typical Zionist narration that equates them to local Jews, because as you see- that problem is much more complicated, and in fact they didn't care much about the local Jewish population- too different, etc. Read: Ammiel Alcalay "After Jews And Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture".

      So keep playing that "ethnicity" card of yours- which is based on false premises anyway- "good luck" with that....
      And plz don't lie about Iqrit and other cities, the authors I gave you who wrote about them show what happened and why, without any sugarcoating...and read about the property issues- about Iqrit is written quite a lot (Kimmerling and W. Khalidi write about it).

    • "Iqrit was originally a Jewish-populated town, from the Mishnaic period"- Why limit yourself only to that period?:)In Iqrit Canaanite erected a statue representing the god Melqart of Tyre, and Kefar from the root: kfr is typical word for “village” since Canaanite times across the region- you can't limit their history to the Jewish one m8 ;]They weren't "the original" inhabitants...
      Example: W. Khalidi, All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, or Meron Benvenisti in "Sacred Landscape".
      Besides its story is more complicated than you show us...read this:
      http://iqrith.com/index.php/the-origin-of-the-name-iqrith

      Please don't say that just because it is mentioned in the Bible or other scripture you suggest that it must have been "originaly" or "only" inhabited by Jews (or Hebrews or Israelites or ppl who believed in El/Il or Yaw/Yau/Yahweh or later in their combined "persona" of 1 God: El/Il, since he was the chief god there, Yahve was his son...). I will repeat myself: even the Bible states that not only Jews lived there, even Jewish archaeologist have proof of that. Practically every city or village mentioned in the Bible has Canaanite roots and were still inhabitated by them (or do you believe that "Jews" killed all Canaanites in the region or most of them?- theory refuted LONG time ago), some later converted some didn't. Besides even the process of the formation of Judaism (that as we can see borrowed elements of local beliefs, which took centuries) are proof of shared life of local Canaanites and Israelites (and later Jewish ppl)- read about UGARIT- basic archaelogical books, like: Mark S. Smith, who writes: “Israelite” religion—have their origin in the earlier polytheisms", and "However, there is little or no basis for these contrasts distinguishing monotheism from polytheism, nor is there a firm basis for the theological weight attached to biblical monotheism itself, a weight that the Bible itself hardly reflects.”- The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Read also: Manfried Dietric and Loretz.
      There are other arguments about this...In another post I gave some titles about this all.
      The same goes with other migrations. Modern ethnic divisions don't represent the formation of different groups, don't equate religion/language etc to only 1 group- it is a false premise, promoted by modern nationalisms everywere.
      What is your point in writing all this? Do you want to justify what happned to them or why did it happened? In this context of the article and the limitation to only Jewish narration makes it the only explanation.
      Read in Haaretz: Sharon asks court to reject appeal of Ikrit, Biram residents.
      Baruch Kimmerling wrote about Iqrit too.

  • Israeli settlers release wild boars on Palestinian farmland to destroy crops
    • I have to reply here, because on the other site there is no reply button... again. I will also refer to what you wrote here. I am sorry if some thing are hard to read...it is late here... :)
      You are inconsistent in your assertions, you change your mind and definitions depending on who you're talking about. If you play the "WHAT IF game" and say that a hypothetical expulsion of a community or "throwing it into the sea" is genocide or is close to genocide you can't later change your mind and say that what Zionist did to Palestinian was ethnic cleansing, because they did just that.
      Next :
      Internal activities affect the external action and I didn't only describe Hamas' internal structure. I see that Hamas' unused Charter is an important element of your propaganda, and you will stick to it, even when Hamas doesn't do that (and didn't do it from the beginning, since their attacks started only year after that!,etc)+ regardless of the fact that it is not a basis for their actions and even Hamas members themselves say it. You avoid finding out more about Hamas, claiming that you don't want to read what others write about them -wow here you showed your childishness + in these books are interviews and statements from Hamas members, for example Yasin, etc + you ignored what Yousef said. You avoid at all costs anything that would make you to abandon the typical propaganda on the subject- your choice.
      It is clearly written that the main obstacle to change the Charter--- (which Hamas as a grass-root movement [even as a political party] don't use, and don't find necessary to produce a new one every single time they change their policy- and those books explain why [but you refuse to read them- it is your problem not mine]------are caused by attacks of radical and rival groups, that is why I gave you the work written by Yezid Sayigh who writes about it!I see you have NO idea how big a threat they are for Hamas, NO ONE CARES that you think it shouldn't be a problem for Hamas, why do you think Likud doest change its charter? [the difference also lies in the fact that Likud is serious about its written documents and have different form of policy in this matter, butit does not change its charter also due to the rivalry and criticism of other (ideologically)right-wing groups-so it doesn't matter what you think about that.
      Next :
      You didn't discover America when you wrote about Hamas' own intepretation of Islam! But if you think that the mere reference to Islamic tradition as a social basis for changes and action is anti-Jewish you are no different from the anti-Semites in this regard. Each group draws on religious tradition, has its own interpretative framework, Jews do it too (they also have problems with different interpretation of their tradition, there are numerous conflicts between Jews in this regard and are groups that promote different visions of "true" Judaism)- so what you wrote is actually one big cliche, that brings nothing to the discussion (Read Talal Asad, R.C.Martin, A. Barzegar "Islamism. Contested Persprectives on Political Islam", works of A. Bayat, Kh. Hroub, or even L.D. Lybarger who has somtimes problems with definitions but in general is ok).
      NEXT:
      You don't have a clue about nationalism, "nation" and Arab nationalism! You read something about the Baath Party? Congratulations! BUT it doesn't mean anything! Their program (which later changed, not to mention the split in the group) is mainly about relationship between nationalism and socialism. While based on a broader discussion of Arab nationalism it doesn't devote more attention to culture and identity! About Arab nationalism read for example : Ernets Dawn , Sukru Hanioglu, M. Muslih, R. Khalidi , J.P Jankowski, Philip S. Khoury, L. Anderson, and sources like: al- Rahman al- Bazzaz , Qustantin Zurayq , Edmond Rabbath , Kh. Qubrusi , SATI AL- HUSRI. You know nothing about it- you prove it by writing nonsense about a "racial " meaning of a community in the Arab context! They (and Palestinians too) see the broad Arab community as a group connected by CULTURE, mainly through language! Only some of them mention the so-called "pure Arabs ", who according to them live in the Arabian Peninsula (they themselves say they are basing this argument on the mythologized history). The rest of the Arabs are descendants of people who were arabized. Your "racial" (blood ties) understanding of groups derive more from Zionist narration! AGAIN DON'T PROJECT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS ONTO OTHERS AND ZIONIST UNDERSTANDINGS (WHICH DIFFER DEPENDING ON TIME ETC.) ONTO PALESTINIANS! For example read about the time when Zionists thought of Palestinians, not as Arabs, but descendants of the ancient Jews, but later that changed their narration: Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi were one of them.
      About nationalism read Craig Calhoun, HANS KOHN, Ch. Tilly, J. Breuilly, even Anthony Smith with his ethnosymbolism (who is criticized for confusion of the concepts of ethnicity and nation, when he studies historical communities- he later modified his ideas).
      What you write is nothing else but the application of the nationalist discourse itself, something M. Billig calls "banal nationalism". You reproduce colloquial thinking about nations which you think represent the real process of nation formation, and it's not! You are wrong about the definition of a nation and nationality! The idea of a nation began to develop in the nineteenth century (some studies go to 18th century), according to latest research it didn't start necessarily or exclusively in Europe). Why do you think Zionism emerged in that time? only because of anti-semitism? Well anti-semitism didn't start at that time, so there were other factors in play and nationalism (the idea of a nation) is one of them- many Jews opposed that idea even at first.
      THERE WERE NO NATIONS in antiquity- READ THE BOOKS ABOVE ABOUT IT! Nomenclature is not important, the idea is!!!! Separateness is not a determinant factor for a nation or a homogeneous culture- because ethnicity has the same elements!! DON'T CONFUSE THEM (+there is no such thing as homogeneous culture, and each researcher will tell you that basic truth). No true scholar say that ancient Persians, Romans, Greeks, etc. were nations! Likewise, the Jews and other communities weren't a nation in ancient times. That idea is created by nationalist discourse and that is typical for most national and historical narratives! Strange that you think it is funny that Cannanites by some are considered to be Palestinians, but you don't write the same about the Zionist narrative of the past- could it be (again)the famous "Jewish" exception? On what basis? Even Israeli scholars of nationalism do not say that!
      ALSO YOU MIX Hebrews with Israelites and Jews. You write as if they were one and the same group that at one point in time they killed all the local people and completely replaced them- WOW! Now there is even a new idea: of a long-term migration and assimilation rather than conquest. Do you think that in the 7th century a handful of people magically replaced the local people and for some reason left only a small group of Jews? Are you crazy? Do you think that ALL "Arabs" come from the Arabian Peninsula?! - Haven't you heard of several waves of migration before 7th century: assimilation, religious conversion, etc? Contemporary clear ethnic divisions and historical narratives don't represent the reality and the historical processes! Divisions represent the contemporary state of nationalist discourses! Arabic (its early forms) is associated with this region- discovery in Ugarit is just one example. It didn't "came" only from the Penisula...eh....REMEBER 1 RELIGION, LANGUAGE, "CULTURE"≠ 1 NATION or group IDENTITY, ETC.
      THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SOLOMON AND DAVID, because the recent discovery in Khirbet Qeiyafa is called the FIRST-EVER identified archaeological evidence of Judean ritual dating from the time of David, about the 10th century bce BUT: Prof. Nadav Na'aman, a historian and archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, discounts Garfinkel and Ganora 's conclusions - what do you think about David is irrelevant. In other post I gave many books on the subject- look it up.
      In addition, Judaism has evolved over a long time and there is evidence in the Bible that "Jews" first believed in two gods El and Yahweh, and only later created the idea of one God. Have you heard about the mother goddess Asherah controversy?? The discovery at Kuntilet ‛Ajrud strains the traditional narrative so much that some traditional Zionist-inclined scholars attempted to “removethe name of ‘Asherah from the inscriptions"- as Johannes C. de Moor writes in "The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism", second edition. For a description of this discovery, see Zeev Meshel, “Kuntilet ‛Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai”. Even the Bible notes that apart from the followers of "Judaism" (Judaism at that time, since it didn't constitute "Judaism" in modern sense) other groups lived in this land, like in Jerusalem, Ashakalan, etc., and no one denies this!! Where do you think the later "infidels" came from? that had to be subjected to Christianization for several centuries? From Mars? THEY WERE THERE ALL ALONG!
      NEXT:
      The closing of Israeli archives has been criticized by many Israeli scholars. I can see your hypocritical attitude in this matter. You put great pressure on the Hamas Charter which from the beginning has been null and void, but you defend the censorship of Zionist archives to defend ACTUAL AND NOT HYPOTHETICAL Israel's crimes- BY YOUR OWN DESCRIPTION: GENOCIDAL- don't care if you suddenly want to change it to ethnic cleansing just because Jews did it, I am just using your original stance about this.
      About Palestinian nationalism: You have selected a nice date 1920 ... beautifully .... "pity" that their national discourse has been used by them earlier DURING THE LATE OTTOMAN TIMES- it was a process, their nationalist discourse gained more and more popularity- Zionism went through a similar process, its ideology became popular in late 20s and 30s. As I wrote sole idea of a group's distinctiveness is not a sufficient criterion for nationhood, nationalism it's practically a never ending process (for all "nations").
      B. Kimmerling, R. Khalidi, M. Muslih, T. Samari, Haim Gerber (who mistakenly writes about Palestinian nationalism in the Middle Ages, but gives great historical sources and facts about their collective consciousness and its development), Ph. Mattar, Walid Khalidi and many others.
      Don't write nonsense that there are no modern problems with the definition of who is a Jew, Israeli, etc. Much is written and spoken about it- you don't need to agree with them, but they exist! The very definition of who is a Jew (formally) has changed and still there is no 100% agreed upon definition. Don't pretend that that nothing has been written about the issue of "recognition of the Jewish state"-definition and consequences- (links, books, UN reports etc. cited on this site alone are enough to make your argument about the "validit"y of that demand preposterous)- I won't write them here again + It was invented after the Palestinians AGAIN recognized the state of Israel (Till this day Israel didn't do the same with Pals), and Israel decided to stop the peace talks by demanding that ridiculous, unprecedented, and not required by law, etc. statement- to continue further colonization.
      oh and for your "genocidal revolts" (again you are arbitrarily using this concept, then surely what Zionists were doing to Pals in 1947-1949 (and even in early 50s- read about it) is genocide- don't know where you got your information (Karsh maybe?? ;p )- give me books that say they were genocidal, how big they were, etc., and read Simha Flapan, B. Kimmerling and Migdal, W. Khalidi, R. Khalidi, even Morris, Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, or even Shlomo Ben Ami, Benvenisti for starters.Read also British reports and UN docs about it all... Untill may 1948 Zionist managed to kill and wipe out many Pals and villages, so the "genocidal fight" was in fact done by Zionists (no form of "defence" here "just" making way for a "jewish state"). If you like quotes: Aryeh Yitzhaki, Israeli historian who served as director of the IDF archives stated: "In almost every conquered village (...), Zionist forces commited war crimes such as indiscriminate killings, massacres and rapes."
      You only showed that you have no idea what you're writing about, you avoid or arbitrarily reject any argument to maintain YOUR current ideas about some things. I suppose that once again you will give ONLY YOUR OPINION as "the only" sure counterargument against something you didn't even read, but arbitrarily reject it anyway .... so I will not reply to you anymore since it is meaningless... I doubt that you will read that many books (or at least the few articles I gave you- they are free online) and get familiar with their arguments in 5 minutes, so the discussion wouldn't make sense anyway....

  • How many 'Palestinian Arabs' want to kill 'all Jews?'
    • I didn't even referred to those quotes- as I said I don't play that game. If you want to play the game: “what would count”- it definately makes Zionist kicking out and killing Palestinians count as genocide. Zionists didn't only write on paper to get rid of them or anything- they did it in practice. Ask yourself why Bibi didn't open the archives and won't open them anytime soon because he is concerned that Israel will be accused of war crimes? At least he admitted that, and didn't even try to defend them. This move stopped any progress in history research for at least a decade! Do you remember the holocaust threat made by deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai?- Do you really want to go down that road? All over internet we have quotes that could easily be categorised as genocidal. So the discussion about this is meaningless. Lets move on...

      Comparing it to Zionists who actually committed genocide, and are still doing it to establish a "Jewish State"this game is redundant- I presume that if you want to see hypothetical Hamas' actions as genocidal basing on your own interpretation of their unused charter there is no problem calling actual Zionist actions as such. Which you don't do!+ as it was written that Zionist actions fit to the definition of a genocide.

      NEXT:
      "When Hamas formally retracts the charter..."- didn't you read the part when Yousef explained: Ahmed Yousef writes: An internal committee reviewed the possibility of amending the charter during the nineties and ratifying it as a binding manifesto; yet the primary concern, that of being seen as following the Fatah route of offering up concessions on a silver platter, led the group’s leadership to shelve such measures. Remember Hamas is being challenged in their commitment to fight the occupation by various groups and it is easier for them to keep the old Charter and instead they create new policy FOR THAT READ: Hamas Rule in Gaza: Three Years On, by Yezid Sayigh- GREAT STUDY!

      You have problems with understanding how Hamas works- if u didn't understand what I wrote earlier: For that read: Jeroen Gunning, Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence. As a grass-root movement till this day Hamas doesn't work mainly on the basis of their texts, that is why the Charter was mostly from the start useless for them- so it is funny that israeli propaganda basis their anti-hamas stance on it, it says a lot about israeli politics actually (lack of any proper argument on their part) ! Read the book- don't have the time and space here to explain the whole process (if you really want to know). So if you choose to ignore their actual politics and wonder "what if" or base your opinion only on their old text + ignoring how Hamas actually works- it is your problem, not mine.

      "Where can I find statements that refute aspects of the charter that are official? "- well I quoted Yousef on that matter, and Gunning or Tamimi have their own quotes- read them.

      Well- they didn't say nothing about "Killing all 6.1m Zionists is still genocidal"- you said it- it goes to your "what if" game I presume.

      There is nothing wrong with the statement of the electoral platform: Islam as a path for changes, to enhance the building of the society + liberation from occupation (who would want that, eh?) in your mind it must be a secret code for genocide...maybe Zionists think that building a society can be done only by destroying others- well they did that actually, so DON"T PROJECT Zionist doings onto others....+ so any reference to Judaism or Jewish tradition in Israel programs, text etc should be read as genocidal- what a weird way of thinking...

      "To propagandize against Hamas. That’s their job"- no it's not- that is just poor propaganda to keep the status quo and steal more land, nothing more.

      "PLO’s stated policy was a violent ethnic cleansing “pushing Jews into the sea"- no actually they were against Zionist, not Jews per se. Read how Palestinians distinguished between Jews and Zionist (later it blurred, since Zionist insisted that all Jews are the same- it is typical nationalist discourse, used by every other national narration, but all scholars in the world know there is no such thing as a homogeneous group or a nation for that matter, and current debate in Israel about who is a Jew is only one the 100000 examples of that).
      Oh and the only ppl who pushed others into the sea were Zionists who pushed Palestinians into the sea, but yea....- so using your words Zionists committed violent ethnic cleansing- nice of you to admit that!

      The Arab uprisings were genocidal- hahaha rly? how did you come up with that? Yes:1947-9 was ethnic cleansing- Zionist committed ethnic cleansing during that time: kicking out ppl, destroying villages, living them to die and barring them from returning- yep- Zionists did that.

      NEXT: Zionism for them was an ideology. They didn't equate local Jews with those who called themselves Zionist (you should read about it). In 1948 the Palestinian Declaration of Independence called for a 1 state, against the Zionist policy not Jews... again if you have problems comprehending that it is your problem not mine.

      Not mingle Zionist narration about Jews with Palestinian understanding of them...That is why I wrote how they defined Jews and Zionist- but you didn't understand that! So let me rephrase that: Zionists didn't see Palestinians as a nation for their own reasons, Pals did the same with Zionists and Jews (they considered Jews a part of Palestinian nation; Zionist didn't do that with Pals actually since they are considered Arabs, that is why today Izrael has problems with the definition of nationhood, citizenship, jewishness, etc).

      "The document said the exact opposite of that"- Nope read again! The difference is that you want it to MEAN sth else, as you write: it was not the intention of the document- so it is more your interpretation- I see you are again projecting Zionist's experience on others in this one:) Zionists are writing 1 thing about equality but do the other (those about 30 laws against Pals, and many other actions that target non-jews, which were 10000 mentioned here are proof of that, there is no sense of refuting that).

      "Jews where were of the wrong race"- oh now it is total bs:)You DIDN'T read the doc did you? ;p You should know that Arabs in general didn't/don't operate in those terms, that is why they considered local Jews as Palestinians, Arabs know about the Arabization of culture. READ about Arab nationalism for cryin' out loud. They had/have a broad understanding about culture, ect.- AGAIN YOU ARE PROJECTING ZIONIST THINKING ONTO PALESTINIANS. Zionist kicked out Pals just because they were in the way of making a "Jewish state"- so once again you are hitting yourself here m8.

      "At that time the overwhelming majority of the Israeli population didn’t have respective countries."- if u like or not, still they were mostly immigrants- you know that :)

      "By any reasonable definition of nationality: shared language, shared culture, shared history…"- NO ITS NOT:) Different nations have their own definition, READ ABOUT NATIONALISM: CRAIG CALHOUN IS GOOD FOR NOOBS ON THE SUBJECT :) besides Jews had different languages (you know the history of Hebre right?), different understanding of religion, culture etc.

      "recognizing Israel as a Jewish state "- this subject wasn't undertaken here 10000 times, so I won't repeat it, I will only add that even Jews don't know what it means and will be the consequences...+ it is not necessary to do that at all...so you have a problem with that not Pals ;]
      "I agree. The PLO/PA is clear (though unrealistic)."- well the occupier will do anything to steal more land, eh?

      So actually you only confirmed what I wrote...you only added more "ifs", "what ifs", your own interpretations, you showed you didn't read the actual docs, but still wrote what you think they meant, and projected Zionist doings on Pals, thus in fact, arguing that it was the Jews who committed genocide. Plus you know nothing about nationalism in general, arab nationalism, don't know what Hamas is and how it actually works + your defence of the occupation, and racial identification of a state and nation... again is proof that even by your definition Israel is genocidal, and it goes beyond their rhetorics, etc....

    • You are right. I was referring to his loose use of the term concerning the outdated and not even used Hamas' document (even the PLO's from 1968!), while avoiding using the term to describe Zionist actions. If he insists on applying this concept to an old document (using a twisted interpretation for that matter), he should be consistent in doing that and call Zionist actions against Palestinians as such. From what I've read he is firmly opposed to that. I read earlier entries, in which someone presented definition of genocide, according to which what was done to Palestinians definitively falls under that definition.

    • PLZ stop cheap propaganda here:) If we apply your way of thinking- Zionist committed genocide against Palestinians: by killing and expelling them + destroying over 500 villages to make way for Jews only + not letting their own citizens return to their homes. Not to mention the negation of the existance of Palestinians and their right to have a state (even to this day)- this stance is practically the same as Hamas' in their now outdated Charter. So plz stop this nonsense.
      First of all you are citing Hamas Charter DESPITE THE FACT IT WASN'T EVEN USED AS A BASIS FOR THEIR POLTICS AND THERE ARE NEW DOCUMENTS that are part of contemporary Hamas' politics. Jeroen Gunning or Azzam Tamimi, argue it was written by the “old guard”. Very few Hamas' leaders and ordinary members have even referred to the Charter as a source of any argument and for the time being the Charter does not represent the views of the present leadership. Hamas from its beginning has been a grass-root movement and therefore its texts tend to be more of momentary snapshots and abstracts that do not represent Hamas' complexity. Even Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela write about this. READ ALSO: Jeroen Gunning, Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence.
      The charter was written in 1988 in the wake of the intifada- the revolutionary days represent the context within which the concept of a charter was formed.- remember that. Hamas at first didn't even engage in the intifada. Attacks started in 1989.
      Hamas was associated with Muslim Brotherhood and didn't engage in armed struggle- one of the reasons, apart for its opposition (not total) to Fatah, why Israel finansed it. Hamas has a loosely defined political theory which implemented in practice does not obviously mirror its ideal representation and fulfilment.Let me remind you that the Muslim Brotherhood did not engage in combat, proving that even the Palestinian Muslims aren't adequately prepared for it. Hamas moved away from the argument, indicating willingness to take the fight. To make this difference in narrative less visible it quoted a verse referring to the Islamic world, which is burning and ppl should extinguish the fire, the shouldn't wait for help from others.

      As for your qutoes, it goes like this:
      So Israel with its Jewishness and its Jewish population challenges Islam and Muslims.- but what it refers to?? well before it states that:We shouldn't lose this opportunity to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied immaculate Jerusalem in 1967 they stood n the stairs of the blessed Masjid al-Aqsa loudly chanting: "Muhammad has died and left girls behind"- earlier it blamed ZIONISTS for the social problems: alcohol and drugs. That is the context of the quote.

      The other quote explains the relation between religion, nationalism and struggle, as the article 12 (Chapter 3) states it clearly.

      Did you expect a pacifist document or sth during intifada and the fight for freedom, etc? Zionist also have similar narration about fighting the enemy and its occupation of "Jewish" lands, etc. No differences here actually ;]

      Hamas has undergone both ideological and political changes. Professor Khaled Hroub in his article “A 'New Hamas' through Its New Documents” depicts the metamorphosis of Hamas into a more savvy political party, capable of compromise and liability. Their 2005 electoral platform addresses eighteen various subjects, which with the exception of two represent what we can call secular discourse. “Our Essential Principles” and “Religious Guidance and Preaching” cover more technical details, such as mosque upkeep, what we could consider as ideological Islamist rhetoric. It contains specific political proposals and deals with the following subjects:
      1. A Palestinian State with the Right of Return;
      2. Governmental Reform;
      3. National Unity;
      4. Democratic Rights; and
      5. Domestic Development.
      The draft program for a coalition government shows Hamas' effort to create a coalition government that will consist of various Palestinian factions. The thirty-nine articles practically cover the matters submitted by the Electoral Manifesto, but also have three additional objectives, which stress the necessity of the Palestinian National Council to include all Palestinian factions that will reflect their popular strength:
      1. To join the PLO;
      2. To deal responsibly with previous agreements; and
      3. At least temporarily to endorse the two-state solution. (!!!)
      Cabinet Platform program was delivered during the Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh speech, which represented a draft of Hamas' governing agenda. It also contains very few religious references and it lacks any militant discourse. The Cabinet Platform presents three new objectives:
      1. To respect the Presidency, the Constitutional Order and the PLO;
      2. To cooperate with Israel in “all mundane affairs”, and (!!!)
      3. To pursue “all avenues” of achieving peace with the Quartet.(!!!)

      The increasing politics of “islamization” since 2009 and 2010 has been the effect of the Hamas' government efforts to hold and reinforce their legitimacy and control over the public sphere in the face of criticism from the Salafi groups- read for example: “Radical Islam in Gaza.” Crisis Group Middle East Report N°104. Since 2007 Hamas has competed and even collided with what was labeled as “takfiri groups”.

      The Israelis have, for example, translated the outdated Charter to several languages,but NOT the NEW DOCUMENTS, ask yourself why...
      To justify the rejection of talks with Hamas, many governments and mass media referred to the content of the Charter, though it wasn't a basis for their political activities. People ignore significant transformations the movement has undergone.
      Ahmed Yousef writes: An internal committee reviewed the possibility of amending the charter during the nineties and ratifying it as a binding manifesto; yet the primary concern, that of being seen as following the Fatah route of offering up concessions on a silver platter, led the group's leadership to shelve such measures.
      Instead, new ideas were proposed that reflected the movement's openness to the international community and its willingness to adopt a more realistic political view.

      Oh and plz...you don't want to start the "battle of quotes"- since I am sure you know that Zionist have many "pearls" on their side too, and many that can be considered genocidal. As you wrote: Generally genocidal movements don’t call themselves genocidal movements- so be careful with that...

      As for the PLO charter from 1968:(read about the differences between "Charter" from 1964 and the 1968)
      I'll skip the issue of your 99%...(in 1968 for that matter)
      It is quite understandable that Palestinians will question the presence of Zionist immigrants in their land- what Zionists actually did with the Palestinian population represents much worse policy in this respect, don't you think? They wrote it remembering what Zionist did to their own Arab Palestinian citizens- don't forget that.
      The 1968 Charter is based on Fatah constitution. The aim is to remove the economic, political, military and cultural Zionist elements in Palestine- DO NOT equate that with killing Jews!. The intention is to create in the future a democratic state with Jerusalem as its capital, which will protect the rights and equality of all citizens, without any form of racial and religious discrimination. Zionism is called a racist, colonial and aggressive ideology. It refers to the old idea of establishing a one state (like in the Declaration of independence of 1948).

      PLO Charter 1968: Jewish community that lived in Palestine before the Zionist immigration is considered part of the Palestinian people (article 6). Article 20 adds that Judaism represents a religion, not nationality. Jews are therefore not of one nation, with its own identity, as individual Jews are citizens of different states (from which they came). Jews that lived originally in Palestine are Palestinian citizens and have a Palestinian nationality. Religious identification according to the authors of the National Charter isn't enough to have a national identity. Having in mind other texts and political stances AT THAT TIME most Zionist would probably have to return to their respective countries.

      WHAT YOU OMIT IS THE FACT THAT:
      After the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and its recognition of the state of Israel (Israel didn't recognize Palestinian right to have a state!!), the Palestinian Authority changed the earlier provision on the recognition of the Jews (non-zionist) as Palestinians. In 1996 the Palestinian National Council has introduced an amendment to the Charter, canceling points that didn't recognize the state of Israel (since the Charter wanted a one state solution). These decisions were confirmed again in 1998- Decisions and Actions Related to the Palestine National Charter, UN News and Resources
      http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/12361

      Palestnian Basic Law and the 3rd draft of the constitution say that Palestine is made of: West Bank (with the part of occupied Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip- more than Israel has to say about its borders at this point.

      Read A. Khalil, Palestinian Nationality and Citizenship- about the question of Jews as Palestinian citizens, since there were made changes after the recognistion of state of Israel AND: N.J. Brown, The Third Draft Constitution for a Palestinian State.
      Making simple equations between fighting Zionist and Israel with genocide is poor propagadna, the same tactics is used against Israel- so gratz on that one- you are no different from them.

  • Tensions rise on Temple Mount as rightwing Jews seek to hold Passover rituals there
    • To Walid (no reply button, so I must reply to myself ;p)
      Of course there was/is creativeness on both sides!:) That is the point. Many Zionist used local Muslim traditions for their own benefit showing that Muslim/Arab conquerors built their mosques etc. on earlier Jewish sites, basing this claim mostly on Arabic nomenclature (Muslim/Christian) or on their closeness to sites mentioned in the Bible (which don't make them solely Jewish, since even the Bible say many places were shared by other societies, local religions, etc. and most places existed before Jews came- don't mix with Hebrews or Israelites). This is the case of the Ibrahimi Mosque. In Historical Palestine there was a tradition of building local shrines for many prophets- mostly as their symbolical graves- some prophets have several of them- it often went against the Quranic tradition. Ibrahimi Mosque is one of those sites... But it was appropriated by settles and Zionist who claim it has sth to do with "Jewish" traditions-mostly on the basis that it is named Ibrahim/Abraham.... Benvenisti, Ra'ad and others write about this.
      It is interesting that local Jews (not Zionist) and Christians often shared those symbolic Muslim shrines and went on a pilgrimage together. In Jerusalem Jews, Christians, Muslim celebrated together many festivities like Purim, Nabi Musa, etc. Salim Tamari writes about this in: "Year of the locust" or "Mountain against the sea". But Zionist didn't care much about those traditions and made some new ones for their own use, utilizing reality they founded on the ground-because it was the easiest way. They stated that the Muslim holy places, etc. were built on Jewish ones, so they didn't have to create new sites- only "recover"the old. They weren't concerned with local Jewish and Arab (Muslim and Christian) traditions, realities, or historical accuracy etc.

    • Actually it is. If you read my post closely you will see that nothing is certain even in the Herod's temple case- those books are also about that temple. Even the location of Herod’s Tomb is questioned now. The "Wall" (Simone Ricca as a nice article about it: Heritage, Nationalism and the Shifting Symbolism of the Wailing Wall) is considered more as a symbol now- ppl are still searching for the proof that it is actually the temple's wall (since scholars are not sure if in this very spot the Temple even stood). There are various ideas on the subject, even some scholars that presume it is the right place of the temple write that there is evidence that Herod’s temple was a shared temple for all local religions- so it wasn't only "Jewish". Khirbet Qeiyafa is being disputed by some scholars for example Nadav Na’aman
      And again I will quote: Ra’ad: How the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and later the Western or Wailing Wall became established traditions only emphasizes that people’s search for convenient, useful sacredness is not necessarily based on actual locations or historical grounds. In fact, the current locations are the result of what has been transferred from the imagination to what seemed to fit on the ground. In this case, it is, once again, the Muslim tradition established in the seventh century and associated with Solomon’s Temple that drove devout Jews coming to Jerusalem in the sixteenth century to latch on to the idea that the huge stones nearby on the periphery of the Muslim site mark the remains of a “temple.”, p.77.

    • You should read:
      1.Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman,The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
      2.Israel Finkelstein, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition
      3.Ernest L. Martin, The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot
      4.Keith W. Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History
      5.Thomas L. Thompson,The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel
      6.Nur Masalha, The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel
      7.Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, Brian B. Schmidt, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)
      8.Thomas W. Davis, Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology
      9.Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel
      10.Ze’ev Herzog works.
      11.Revoking the death warrant
      http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/543/fo2.htm
      12. Even this:Archaeological stunner: Not Herod's Tomb after all?
      http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-1.551881

      More: 2012 there was an info that: Two small containers unearthed at Khirbet Qeiyafa are believed to be the FIRST-EVER archaeological evidence of Judean ritual dating from the time of David, about the 10th century b.c.e. BUT: Prof. Nadav Na'aman, a historian and archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, discounts Garfinkel and Ganor's conclusions: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/archaeological-find-stirs-debate-on-david-s-kingdom-1.429087
      TILL THIS DAY THERE IS NO 100% THAT DAVID OR SOLOMON EVER EXISTED OR THE TEMPLE EXISTED. PPL ARE STILL SEARCHING FOR IT.
      Bibliographies of the books above are also very informative. There are lots of books on the matter and even most traditional (biblical archaeologist) don't have any proof that David or Solomon ever existed, not to mention the "Temple(s)" and its/their location.
      Encyclopaedia Judaica from 1971: In the geonic period the place of assembly and prayer for Jews was on the Mount of Olives. The Western Wall became a permanent feature in Jewish tradition about 1520 [ ce], either as a result of the immigration of the Spanish exiles or in the wake of the Turkish conquest of 1518. Read also: Heritage, Nationalism and the Shifting Symbolism of the Wailing Wall, by Simone Ricca (free online).
      To sum up what is in those books:the spot is what remains of Roman towers, while the cave under the Muslim Dome of the Rock is a Bronze Age burial site.
      It is not the first time that Zionist used Muslim traditions...Many ppl tend to identify both “temples” with the Muslim site obscuring the distinctions among the three.
      Read: John Strange, “Herod and Jerusalem: The Hellenization of an Oriential City,”- to sum up: “second” temple, built by Herod (whose affiliation with Judaism is often questioned, and was certainly ambivalent), was later utterly destroyed by the Romans, and Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem for about six centuries thereafter. More importantly,there is evidence that Herod’s temple was a shared temple for all local religions.
      Ra'ad: The whole idea of a “first” temple is questionable on other counts. How could the “first” temple (Solomon’s, from the tenth century bce) have been Jewish when Judaism had not begun as a religion until several centuries after the presumed time of Solomon? (This is aside from severe doubts many historians now have about the reality or actual existence of the David/Solomon kingdom.- Hidden Histories: p. 76.
      Ra'ad: How the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and later the Western or Wailing Wall became established traditions only emphasizes that people’s search for convenient, useful sacredness is not necessarily based on actual locations or historical grounds. In fact, the current locations are the result of what has been transferred from the imagination to what seemed to fit on the ground. In this case, it is, once again, the Muslim tradition established in the seventh century and associated with Solomon’s Temple that drove devout Jews coming to Jerusalem in the sixteenth century to latch on to the idea that the huge stones nearby on the periphery of the Muslim site mark the remains of a “temple.”, p.77.
      OR BENVENISTI.- read BOTH their works on how Zionist used Muslim traditions as "Jewish" for their own benefit.

  • Palestinian youth say the talks with Israel are futile
    • Under Just's and Talknic's posts: "By the way, it’s against Jewish halachic law to destroy these trees"- there are no reply buttons, so I will reply here;]
      Dora Apel in "War Culture and the Contest of Images", p. 195 writes:
      "Yet the uprooting of fruit trees is biblically prohibited, even when they are enemy trees in times of war. Chief Inspector David Kishik, an Orthodox Jew and a settler, explains how contemporary uprooting fits with this biblical prohibition: “[T]he tree is the source of the problem. It's not just an incidental thing like [it is] in the Bible. Here, the tree is not only a symbol of the Arab's occupation of the land, but it is also the central means through which they carry out this occupation. . . . It's not like the tree is the enemy's , in which case the Bible tells you not to uproot it because it has nothing to do with the fight. Here it has everything to do with it. The tree is the enemy soldier.”"
      David Kishik- Chief Inspector of the Israeli Civil Administration in the West Bank.

    • From the article "Gethsemane Olive Trees Among World’s Oldest":
      Two famous olive trees often lay claim to being the world’s oldest. The olive tree of Vouves in Chania, Greece, a tree that still produces fruit, is thought to be 2,000 years old according to tree ring analysis. However some scientists believe it is closer to 4,000 years in age. The other contender is the Al Badawi tree in the village of Al Walaja, Bethlehem, which is thought to be between 4,000 and 5,000 years old.
      Link: http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-basics/gethsemane-olive-trees/30151#disqus_thread
      Or: Two diferent groups of Japanese and European experts dated Al Badawi (The Big One), as the Palestinians calls it, between 4,000 and 5,000 years old- from the link below:
      http://www.stopthewall.org/2011/10/24/al-walaja-oldest-olive-tree-world-endangered-occupation
      Hope it will help.

  • Haaretz joins Rush Limbaugh and company in trying to link Max Blumenthal to KC shooter suspect
    • Not quite :) I do recommend reading the books I mentioned above on the subject and their bibliography. Besides, the term “Arab ppl” I understand as the representatives of Arabic culture (process of arabization- mainly through the Arabic language) not as a group of people having one ethnic dimension + being associated biologically with each other in some way (as a race). Even Arab nationalists like Edmund Rabbat, Abd Allah al-Alayli, Qunstantin Zurayq or Abd ar-Rahman al-Bazzaz didn’t understand “Arabs” as some kind of race or one homogeneous group. Plus- after all in ancient times the land was not inhabited exclusively by Jews themselves (in addition often “Jews” are confused with such concepts like: “Hebrews” or “Israelites”), the land had never been inhabited by one group and magically completely replaced by another (you know the old pattern of thought: different religion or language= different people). Therefore, there is no such thing as a “Jewish town”(in the past or now, + how a town can be Jewish, Arabic, etc?) :) Often committee members (responsible for the renaming of places) couldn’t pinpoint the place itself- to correspond with biblical tradition, but in the end didn’t mind that much about that fact, the process of renaming itself was crucial here. Those committees often worked like this: first check whether the name is similar to the Biblical one or whether the village is close to the village of ancient times, and then a city or village was defined as “Jewish” and renamed (using different technics). They did this even though Arabic often preserved the original ancient names… Many scholars write about this issue: you will find good bibliography in previously mentioned books – wish you good reading! ps. the studies about Arabic and its relationship with Ugaritic are fascinating! Worth reading. Hostage also has a good point with the DNA issue.

    • Sorry! :) I was confused who was writing to whom and wasn't sure + the other person wrote that I was opening some kind of a new front here so I just wrote my thoughts down:) Thank you for your reply! Wish you all a happy Holiday!:)

    • Not quite :) I do recommend reading the books I mentioned above on the subject and their bibliography. Besides, the term "Arab ppl" I understand as the representatives of Arabic culture (proces of arabization- mainly through the arabic language) not as a group of people having one ethnic dimension + being associated biologically with each other in some way (as a race). Even Arab nationalists like Edmund Rabbat, Abd Allah al-Alayli, Qunstantin Zurayq or Abd ar-Rahman al-Bazzaz didn't understand "Arabs" as some kind of race or one homogeneous group. Plus- after all in ancient times the land was not inhabited exclusively by Jews themselves (in addition often "Jews" are confused with such concepts like: "Hebrews" or "Israelites"), the land had never been inhabited by one group and magically completely replaced by another (you know the old pattern of thought: different religion or language= different people). Therefore, there is no such thing as a "Jewish town"(in the past or now, + how a town can be Jewish, Arabic, etc?) :) Often committee members (responsible for the renaming of places) couldn't pinpoint the place itself- to correspond with biblical tradition, but in the end didn't mind that much about that fact, the proces of renaming itself was crucial here. Those committees often worked like this: first check whether the name is similar to the Biblical one or whether the village is close to the village of ancient times, and then a city or village was defined as "Jewish" and renamed (using different technics). They did this even though Arabic often preserved the original ancient names... Many scholars write about this issue: you will find good bibliography in previously mentionsed books - wish you good reading! ps. the studies about Arabic and its relationship with Ugaritic are fascinating! Worth reading. Hostage also has a good point with the DNA issue.

    • There is no reply button next to your other post (about Passover), so I post here...
      Well... first you must remember that his book isn't an academic one about Jewish culture as such. It has a purpose to show that the general POLITICAL narrative about Jewish ppl being besieged, threatened, and surrounded by enemies have its effect on the society who despite many political and media coverage isn't as liberal, democratic, etc. as it paints itself to be. He describes how holidays are used politically and how it affects Jewish society in general.
      Actually there are lots of books about political use of holidays by Jews. Even before establishing the state of Israel Passover was used for political gain- since it is associated with ideas of freedom and independence. As Anna Shternshis writes: "By the end of the XIX century Jewish radicals in Poland, the United States, and Canada were employing Passover seder for the promotion of political views as well as a way to criticize their opponents (Soviet and Kosher: Jewish Popular Culture in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939, p. 27). Soviet Jewish activists organized so called "Red Passovers", which also were used for political resons, etc. The same is happening now in Israel. Max isn't the first author to raise those issues.
      Besides we can all see that lots of Jewish media covers about Passover often use it against other ppl, who are considered enemies like: Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims etc (like for example the article by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger). You can google: Passover, Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims and see for yourself that many media coverages and politicians use holidays for political propaganda.
      Holidays and rituals have their purpose (in general, especially in nationalist discourse), and in the case of main Zionist narrative (as a national project- I use it as a neutral term) the atmosphere of time immemorial antisemitism, fighting and liberation is often used for current socio-political goals. Other national narratives do it as well. Some settlers use special events- like Passover- for political gains (like Rabbi Moshe Levinger and later his son Shlomo who chose the time of Passover for a reason to start a settlement in Hebron. Avichai Stollar has an article in Haaretz about the new settlement in Hebron "History repeats itself in Hebron").
      The instances of racist, anti-democratic acts did happen in Israel and he examines those events in a broader context of Israeli social politics. This political use of holiday events have a wide and strong influence on the society and this fact Blumenthal analyses.
      The same happened with Palestinian holiday Nabi Musa. It is normal for holidays treated as national to be used politically, and Max is describing that fact and its effects on the society. That is all. He focuses on Jewish political use of certain cultural and social elements and their impact. Do you see the difference now? The same analysis you can find about Palestinian festivals and holidays.

    • Thank you very much! :)

    • oh, I only corrected your post: "Lydda and Acre were not the original names of these cities. In Arabic these towns are not called Lydda and Acre, but Lod and Acco. Those names (Lydda and Acre) are Western names given to ancient places and the more ancient names are Lod and Acco"- you are wrong. In Arabic its not Acco but Akka the same is with Lod, and they are the original names of the cities. Max writes on p.145:"...Acre—now an Israeli city renamed “Akko"..."- maybe for clarity's sake he should have written the Arabic name (he didn't write that Acre is an ancient name only that it was renamed), but his main goal was to point out the fact that the city was renamed on purpose, after the expulsion of its inhabitants- and he is right. You don't have to examine or discover the exact timing of the various names because it is already done (the books and quotes I provided represent some of the studies about it). You should read my other post that says that Zionists changed the traditional names only to erase the Arabic ones- they didn't care if the names were "historical" or not (that is "biblical", since they give a lot of credence to that fact, as if somehow it justifies their doings). They did it to show that the "original" names are only the "Hebrew" ones and the new Jewish inhabitants are just "coming back" and not colonizing + throwing out the real colonizers- the Arabs who are "alien" to the land... The same is with the appropriation of the holy sites- many of them didn't have any ancient Jewish connection (despite the claims), but were taken only because they had a "Jewish" like name or refered to some Jewish tradition, etc. It is not a reason to hate anyone, since such policy is quite typical for any nationalist movement. The problem is that many take those Zionist actions as "reclaiming" the land, etc. which is not...and are used to justify what Zionist did to Palestinians. So you are wrong writing that Akko is an ancient name, used also in Arabic- because it's not (it's Akka- you should have checked that first, before writing your post), and Max is right when he writes that Zionists renamed the city to Akko- which isnt' the "original" name. There are even issues raised with the proper renaming it to "Hebrew"- that vowel problem I wrote earlier. Besides it wasn't his main point in his chapter. But I can see that he should have clarified that the Arabic name was Akka not Acre :)

    • Just corrected an error that yonah fredman made-just that :) He first took on the subject not me. If you have a bigger issue with my correction than with the error fredman made it's not my problem :) Besides the Zionists have been playing with nomenclature since the 20's and even formed several committees that had to change the names of Arab towns (my other post shows that they even went against jewish tradition, only to erase the Arabic name)-it is part of their cultural policy. You should therefore read more on that matter rather than be fussy about my correction of an erroneous post.

    • Take it easy plz.
      That's the problem. Changing the names was dictated mainly by politics and Zionist historical narrative, which emphasized (although not from the very beginning, because even Gurion, together with the future 1st president of Israel wrote that Arab peasants in Palestine are descendants of the ancient communities) that the Jews are the "right" and "original" community in Palestine and not the Arabs in Palestine. The process of changing the names to " biblical", ie "original" started back in the 20's. The problem is that even Zionists themselves (the researchers) argue that multiple translations of the Bible distorted the names, so they often had to rename the Arabic names instinctively and guess how they should sound like in Hebrew ... All this action is political, to show that "original" inhabitants "returned". The names of various places are intended to be the evidence of their "originality" - but as it turns out they are not. If you like it or not it is a proces of renaming the places- to justify the expulsion of Arab inhabitants and replacing them with new Jewish ones- to divert the attention from the colonization process and to give the impression that arch-absent residents are in fact "returning" and not colonizing.
      As Ra'ad writes: "Yohanan Aharoni (one of the early authorities on Israeli geography) and others are forced to admit the errors in Hebrew transcription, even as they want to insist that biblical or other Hebrew sources of names are the genuine or original ones: “the biblical sources have undergone a long process of oral and written transcription ... some errors with regard to place names have crept in". At the same time, to give more credence to the Hebrew forms, Aharoni has to argue that transcription problems “exist mainly in the non-biblical sources, especially the Egyptian and Akkadian,” although these are the only available and fairly reliable sources (Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, p. 100-104). Yael Elitzur, a recent Israeli writer on toponymy (place naming), concedes the role of the “autochthonous inhabitants” in continuing the preservation of names (Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land, p. 2.), though who these undefined indigenous people are remains too sensitive for Elitzur to name them directly—viz. the Palestinians" (Ra'ad, p. 178)
      "Yohanan Aharoni’s The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography is a typical early example of how Zionists deal with toponyms. For Aharoni, the place names are the ancient ones confirmed in the Bible, transmitted later in Aramaic, and then with the Muslim conquest in 638 ce they took on the “Arabic mouth.” This fallacious premise leads to several linguistic jumps that contradict even his own list of toponyms that show ancient Egyptian or other regional variants are different from and more natural than the Hebrew. [...] Other Israeli writers attempt to maintain this illusion of continuity and naturalness in relation to the modern imposition of the Hebrew names. They want to consider the Arabic influence as a “distortion” and that the Hebrew names have now been “regained,” contradicting the linguistic evidence and failing to give any credit to the Palestinian population that preserved the names: “many of the place-names were transmitted from ancient times, from one generation to another". (Ra'ad, p.184-185)
      "...a 1986 monograph by Thomas L. Thompson and F. C. Goncalvez entitled Toponomie Palestinienne: Plaine de St Jean D’Acre et Corridor de Jerusalem. This study shows how the Zionist toponymy project, originally established as early as 1920 to “restore” Hebrew names or to create names of symbolic meaning, went much further than its original mandate. There was simply not enough tradition to go by, so it could only continue by picking out biblical or Jewish associations at random. It had to Hebraize Arabic names, or in other cases translate Arabic to Hebrew to give the location an ideologically consistent identity. For example, some locations were rendered from Arabic into the Hebrew phonetic system: Minet el-Muserifa became Horvat Mishrafot Yam and Khirbet el Musherifa was changed to Horvat Masref. Sometimes, in this artificial process, the committees forgot about certain genuine Jewish traditions, as in the case of the total canceling of the Arabic name Khirbet Hanuta, not recognizing that it probably rendered the Talmudic Khanotah. This forced exercise of re-naming often even went against biblical tradition, most notably in erasing the Arabic names Yalu and ‛Imwas. Yalu became Ayallon, while ‛Imwas, Western Emmaus, associated with the Christ story, was one of three villages, along with Beit Nuba, razed in 1967. According to the Israeli writer Meron Benvenisti in Sacred Landscape, in order for a total map of the “Land of Israel” to be created, and since only a small number of place names could conceivably be linked to anything mentioned in the Bible, the renaming often became a forced exercise in making arbitrary connections, sometimes picking words at random from the Bible or translating to Hebrew the indigenous Arabic names and pretending they were Hebrew". (Ra'ad, p.188-189)
      Read the footnotes he provides in his book: he quotes multiple scholars on the matter and gives detailed descriptions of language problems concerning the above issues.

    • For the last part: The proper arabic name is Akka not Acco. The name was changed to represent the "original" name, but it is false. There are problems with the shifting of the vowels from Arabic to Hebrew, like from: a—o, ‘a—a, a—e. Akka is much closer to the original name not Acco: Canaanite ‛Aka. The same goes with other city names. Read: Hidden Histories. Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean by Basem L. Ra'ad (p. 176-179) or Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948, by Meron Benvenisti. You should read the chapter in Ra'ads book: Politics of Place Names.
      He writes: "Place-naming in Palestine and Israel takes on an unusual character in that while Zionist organizers were not natives of Palestine they assumed nativity for themselves in their claim system, at the same time denying native status to the indigenous inhabitants who originally coined the names or continued them, and from whom the Zionists often took place names in order to translate them. Zionist claims assume that the Arabic forms are more recent and arose after the Arab/Muslim “conquest” in 638 ce, which changed or “distorted” place names, as if Arabic were a totally foreign language alien to its region. Ironically, however, the same city names assumed to be more recent (that is, the ones used in Arabic, ‛Asqalan and ‛Akka) are much closer to the original names found in hieroglyphic that date back around 4000 years...". (p.176-177).

Showing comments 105 - 101
Page: