Trending Topics:

How many ‘Palestinian Arabs’ want to kill ‘all Jews?’

News
on 112 Comments
New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Pamela Paul, the editor of The New York Times Book Review, needs some help, and the Mondoweiss community can come to her assistance.

A few weeks ago, I sharply criticized a letter that ran in the Book Review, which included the sentence, “Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews.” And Ira Glunts also objected to it.

The Times’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan, reports today that she asked Pamela Paul about the letter. Paul said no apology was necessary, but she did concede that “it might have been a good idea to insert a modifier, such as ‘many’ or ‘some,’ before ‘Palestinian Arabs’ in the editing process.”

This site is recently getting an average of more than 30,000 clicks a day. That’s a lot of people, many of whom have tremendous expertise on the Israel/Palestine question. We have visitors who live in Israel or Palestine, and have valuable first-hand knowledge.

So it’s time to crowd-source. Here’s our question: What is the percentage of “Palestinian Arabs” who want to kill “all Jews?” We want proof: public statements, opinion surveys, and other documentation. (As a secondary question, we want to know: does “all Jews” mean “all Jews everywhere,” or just “all Jews in Israel/Palestine?”)

We want to be able to go back to Pamela Paul with the most accurate “modifier.” “Many?” “Some?”

Or– “not a single one at all”?

James North
About James North

Other posts by .


Posted In:

112 Responses

  1. ritzl
    ritzl on April 20, 2014, 11:26 pm

    Great question and effort. Tweeted.

  2. bpm
    bpm on April 21, 2014, 1:41 am

    I have a fundamental problem with all of this. This was a letter to the editor. As such it was a statement of opinion by the writer. To modify such a letter beyond simple grammar or spelling is a violation of journalistic ethics. You can’t edit someone’s opinion. It either is or isn’t what the writer says it is. I find consideration of editing the letter’s content quite revealing of the Times’ arrogance. You should either run or not run a letter. To significantly change its content is to lie. And in so doing you also cover up what can be, as in this case, the writer’s ignorance and bigotry.
    At the same time those who criticize the Times as somehow agreeing with the letter writer for simply running it really don’t understand the concept of letters to the editor and publishing dissenting views.
    The readers are quite capable of judging on their own.
    For what it’s worth I suspect most Palestinians would be quite willing to letting every Jew anywhere live forever. What they want is justice and a return of a significant share of their homeland. But that’s just my opinion — no matter how you choose to edit this reply.

    • ritzl
      ritzl on April 21, 2014, 3:03 am

      The issue is whether the NYT would even consider running a letter saying “Jews want to kill your babies and drink their blood.” Readers could make up their own minds on that too, but it is so far out of whack as to be well outside the bounds of any even marginal definition of what’s legitimately discussable, even if it was “qualified” with “some Jews” or “many Jews.”

      Why would the NYT even consider running a similar libel against Palestinians, let alone actually run it? It’s lunatic fringe material. It would boggle if it wasn’t such standard procedure.

      North and Glunts are doing the right thing here.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty on April 21, 2014, 9:38 am

        Exactly, ritzl. It’s slander. Pure and simple.

    • traintosiberia
      traintosiberia on April 21, 2014, 11:37 am

      Will NYT publish a letter that says ” until the Jews stop talking of enslaving and uprooting all Arabs from Euphratis to Sinai as documented in many of their publications both rabbinic and secular,there is no chance of achieving any peace on the earth ” ?

      I am sure that NYT does allow more criticism in Internet than it does in the printed edition. It is obvious by the numbers of comments in Internet that are critical of Israel.
      NYT does suppress facts . Why can’t it suppress the lies?

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 22, 2014, 8:20 pm

        traintosiberia says:
        April 22, 2014 at 8:38 am

        The English reference book Modern history or the present state of all nations written in 1744 stated that “Jerusalem is still reckoned the capital city of Palestine”.[133]
        Modern History or present state of all nations (1744) by Salmon Thomas

        One can find reference books from hundreds of years ago with inaccurate information just as one can today. Some old books endorse Lamarckian evolution, spontaneous generation, and the geocentric theory; the contents reflects the quaint notions of people who did not know better but educated people of today do not rely on these works.

        In the 18th century, there was no geopolitical entity called “Palestine”, although the European imagination contemplated a land called “Palestine” that also includes areas currently under the jurisdiction of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan as well as what is now part of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In the 1700s, when Salmon’s book was published, there was Ottoman Syria, and there was a sanjak of Jerusalem which was part of the Vilayet of Damascus. The Arabs residing there, if they thought about where they lived, just knew the country as balad as shams. Jerusalem was not a political capital of anything in the 1700s.

    • Ellen
      Ellen on April 21, 2014, 11:56 am

      bpm, usually (at least it used to be like this) editors would pick the most articulate letter(s) reflecting a common viewpoint of readers. And then they might publish the first and last reflecting something the editor found noteworthy.

      So either the NYT editor found the letter to reflect a majority of the responsive readership, or the editor the sentiment expressed worthy of broad reception.

      That the editor then edited to change the meaning of the letter, indicates it likely never should have been published at all and the editor used it to project her own viewpoint, taking the liberty — under pressure — to even then change the meaning of the letter and presenting it as a worthy public opinion.

      It was obvious ugly and dishonest propaganda, and the NYT does it yet again!

    • Dutch
      Dutch on April 21, 2014, 10:20 pm

      @ bpm

      Within your framework it’s the editor’s duty to make shure that hefty and/or highly unlikely claims such as the one being discussed, are accompanied by solid backup or proof. The editor should have asked the writer to provide this, or refuse publication. Or she could have used her basic human insticts to determine that this claim is simply not acceptable in a civilzed discourse.

      My question is: Why didn’t this happen? And: does this mean that a claim that ‘Jews have avowed as their goal to kill all Palestinians’ gets through also? I doubt it. I think it will be hammered down as an anti-Semitic blood libel. So that’s another point that needs clarification by the Times.

      BTW, I think Ms. Sullivan is showing that – finally – there is movement within the Times on the way to honest reporting on I/P. I salute her.

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 22, 2014, 1:17 am

        Dutch says:
        April 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm

        @ James

        The inhabitants of Palestine were Palestinians.

        Yes, they were, but only after 1917, and more specifically, from 1925, when the British started issuing Palestinian citizenship documents to residents of their Mandate, until 1948, when the Mandate dissolved, and it only started becoming common to use the term again in the 1960s.

        And ever since the Israeli’s are presenting the Palestinians as ‘Arabs’ (as to make clear they might as well live in Iraq or Yemen), I think we should be thoughtful in using that term.

        Israelis use the term because that’s how the Palestinians by and large refer to and think of themselves, that’s how they define themselves in the founding document of Palestinian nationalism, the Palestinian National Charter, and that’s how they historically referred to themselves in their communal and political institutions during the Mandate period–e.g., the Arab Higher Committee, the Palestinian Arab Party, etc. (emphasis added.) When they weren’t referring to themselves as Arabs, they typically fell back on their Muslim identity (the Muslims among them, at least). Emphasizing their “Palestinianness” is a new thing. The Zionist Palestinian Jews of the Yishuv, on the other hand, did more often use the term Palestinian in referring to their communal institutions (at least when conducting business in English) during the Mandate period–e.g.., the Jewish Agency for Palestine, The Palestine Post, etc.

  3. RoHa
    RoHa on April 21, 2014, 1:49 am

    ‘We want to be able to go back to Pamela Paul with the most accurate “modifier.” “Many?” “Some?”’

    A fair few? A handful? More than you can shake a stick at?
    My guess (based on my knowledge of human nature rather than specific knowledge of Palestinian attitudes) would be “most of the time, hardly any”.

    I look forward to educated answers.

    • German Lefty
      German Lefty on April 21, 2014, 9:39 am

      More than you can shake a stick at?

      LOL. What a funny idiom!

    • Feathers
      Feathers on April 21, 2014, 10:38 am

      Perhaps something more than a quantifying modifier is in order; perhaps an extended modifier such as, “It is understandable that some of the family members whose parents, siblings, etc. have been killed or imprisoned by Israeli actions against Palestinians harbor enough rage to want to kill Jews in retaliation.”

      In his book, Payback: The Case for Revenge, Thane Rosenbaum argues that it is part of human nature to seek revenge, and morally reprehensible not to seek revenge when one is wronged.

  4. Walid
    Walid on April 21, 2014, 1:53 am

    Speaking for myself and knowing many Arabs, I don’t know anyone that would want to kill any Jews. Speaking of the many Palestinians I know, some of which are relatives, I don’t know of any that would want to kill any Jews either. And that includes Israeli Jews too.

    • Taxi
      Taxi on April 21, 2014, 2:59 pm

      Maybe it’s just me, Walid, but I find it weird (and covertly menacing) that the writer uses the term “Palestinian Arabs” (which includes Palestinian israelis – if I’m reading the writer and the context of his letter correctly). I think just using the word ‘Palestinian’ will do as reference. Why attach ‘Arab’ when it’s sooooo obvious that Palestinians ARE Arab. It’s a bit like calling a New York native: a New Yorker American. Just doesn’t roll of the tongue or brain slopes smoothly, does it?

      Come to think of it, I think it’s only zionists who use this term “Palestinian Arab” – using the word ‘Arab’ as a bogeyman’s cuss word? Covert racism?

      • Walid
        Walid on April 21, 2014, 4:04 pm

        Taxi, you’re right, it is weird, as usually the bad guys only use the term “Arab” because “Palestine” is a either a dirty word or a non-word. I mostly always make the distinction “Palestinian-Arab” myself since I accept that there were Palestinian Jews that had every right to be in Palestine and just as much as the Palestinian Arabs. Zionists actually abhor the word “Palestinian” because their mission is to make the word disappear altogether.

      • James Canning
        James Canning on April 21, 2014, 7:42 pm

        Jews in Palestine were Arabs, and Palestinians. (Mid-19th C)

      • Dutch
        Dutch on April 21, 2014, 11:28 pm

        @ James

        The inhabitants of Palestine were Palestinians. Their ‘Arab-ness’ is part of a mix of many ‘-nesses’, and that’s what distinguishes them from the Arabs in the peninsula. They are a Mediterranean/Levantine people. That’s why I prefer the name Palestinian. Besides, there are also non-Arab Palestinians.

        There is no doubt that in terms of culture, language and religion the Palestinians are mostly ‘Arab’. But ethnically that doesn’t fly. And ever since the Israeli’s are presenting the Palestinians as ‘Arabs’ (as to make clear they might as well live in Iraq or Yemen), I think we should be thoughtful in using that term.

        So, my suggestion, let’s stick to ‘Palestinians’, who have lived in Palestine for thousands of years, absorbing other cultures along the way (including Canaanites, Phoenicians, Jews, Arabs, etc.).

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 22, 2014, 12:42 am

        James Canning says:
        April 21, 2014 at 7:42 pm

        Jews in Palestine were Arabs, and Palestinians. (Mid-19th C)

        This is not so. Linguistically speaking, mid-19th century, many, but not all, of the Jews living in the Ottoman-controlled areas that later constituted the British Mandate of Palestine and today comprises the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-controlled Gaza spoke Arabic (in addition to Ladino, Yiddish, and increasingly, by the late 1800s, Hebrew), however, they were neither Arabs in terms of their own self-definition nor in the eyes of their Arab neighbors; nor were they Palestinians. About half of them were Ottoman subjects, the rest held foreign passports, even after many generations in the Holy Land. The Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael circa 1850 mostly used either various dialects of Judeo-Arabic among themselves, Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) or Yiddish (Judeo-German) (there was a large Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazi Jewish population that had been continually present, primarily in Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Sefad (the 4 “holy cities” of Judaism) since the 17th century.) , and the upper classes, particularly among the Sefaradim, sent their children to French-language schools by mid-19th century–by the late 19th century/early 20th century, modern Hebrew was gaining ascendance. Again, although many Jews were able to communicate with Arabs in Arabic, including the Ashkenazim, and many Mizrahim used it among themselves, the Jews of Eretz Yisrael under the Ottomans did not regard themselves as Arabs and distinguished between themselves and the Muslim and Christian Arabs, they certainly had no concept of themselves as belonging to any Palestinian national collective. My own paternal Jewish family had resided in Galilee (from the 1500s) and Jerusalem (since the 1800s) and only became “Palestinian” under the British. Indeed, “Palestinian” only assumed a pertinent juridical meaning under the British Mandate, post-1917, when the British issued Palestinian citizenship to the residents (whether Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Circassians, Greeks) of the Palestine Mandate in 1925. Here is a good example of a Palestinian Jew, who was just as “Palestinian” as my father’s Sefaradi/Mizrahi family who had had lived there for centuries and just as “Palestinian” as Arab Khalidis, Husseinis, and Nashashibis: David Ben Gurion, who landed in Ottoman Jaffa from Congress Poland in 1906 and later became a citizen of the the Palestine Mandate in 1925, stayed a Palestinian until the Mandate dissolved and Israel declared independence in May 1948–just as my father’s parents, Jerusalem natives, became Palestinians under the British in 1925 and ceased to be Palestinians in 1948. The only sense in which “Palestinian Jew” has any meaning is a Jew who held British Palestinian citizenship between 1925-1948.

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 21, 2014, 9:42 pm

        Walid says:
        April 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm I mostly always make the distinction “Palestinian-Arab” myself since I accept that there were Palestinian Jews that had every right to be in Palestine and just as much as the Palestinian Arabs.

        All Israeli citizens and those eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return have a right to be in Israel, not only those Israelis whose ancestors held British Mandate Palestine passports from 1924-1948. However, few (if any) descendants of Jewish families that lived in Eretz Yisrael during the Ottoman or British Mandate period refer to themselves as “Palestinian Jews”; those who live in the State of Israel embrace a Hebrew-speaking Israeli identity, so in effect, there is no longer such thing as a “Palestinian Jew.” (Except for fringe fanatics who want to cause controversy by using that term, like Uri Davis.) Nevertheless, it’s correct in a historical sense to distinguish between “Palestinian Arabs” and “Palestinian Jews.” When discussing the two communities during the Mandate period, it is inaccurate to use sentences like “The UN Special Committee on Palestine voted on partitioning the Mandate into two states, one for Jews and one for Palestinians.” Summaries of the conflict use this type of anachronistic nomenclature all the time, and it’s wrong because as of 1947, there really was no separate and distinct Palestinian national identity, and the Arabs residing in Mandate Palestine did not primarily identify as Palestinians, but as Arabs. (Stating this historical fact in no way negates the fact that a separate Palestinian national identity has since arisen among the descendants of Palestinian Arabs, and doesn’t negate the legitimate aspirations of those now calling themselves Palestinians for self-determination in a state of their own.) But back in 1947, the UN did not recommend that a “Palestinian state” alongside a “Jewish state” should be carved out of the Mandate (because the concept of a distinct “Palestinian People” was then not commonplace) but the General Assembly did vote for an “Arab state” and a “Jewish state.” back then. The 1947 civil war leading up to Israel’s Declaration of Independence following the November 1929 General Assembly vote was not a conflict between “Jews” (Or Israelis) and “Palestinians,” but a violent struggle between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs, because members of both communities were technically, citizens/residents of the Palestine Mandate, so it’s of course accurate and useful to distinguish between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews.

        As for the present, while it is generally understood that “Palestinians” refers to Palestinian Arabs, and the Palestine National Covenant stresses the Arab character of the Palestinian People, there is nothing redundant about using the term “Palestinian Arabs”–because although very few Jews will embrace a Palestinian cultural or national identity today, there are still some non-Arabs who accept a Palestinian political identity but don’t regard themselves as ethnically Arab, such as Armenians and the descendants of the much smaller Greek Christian community in Israel/Palestine.

      • Walid
        Walid on April 22, 2014, 1:00 am

        “All Israeli citizens and those eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return have a right to be in Israel,…”

        This was helped along by Israel having ensured the 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs could not physically return to their homes. Nothing is natural about Israel. You said it yourself that there were only a few authentic Palestinian Jews.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia on April 22, 2014, 8:38 am

        The English reference book Modern history or the present state of all nations written in 1744 stated that “Jerusalem is still reckoned the capital city of Palestine”.[133]
        Modern History or present state of all nations (1744) by Salmon Thomas

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem

      • James Canning
        James Canning on April 22, 2014, 7:56 pm

        Bravo. And of course it was seen correctly as the capital of Palestine.

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 22, 2014, 6:56 pm

        Walid says:
        April 22, 2014 at 1:00 am

        “All Israeli citizens and those eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return have a right to be in Israel,…”

        This was helped along by Israel having ensured the 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs could not physically return to their homes.

        It’s a tragic feature of war that people become displaced. It’s a pity that Palestinian Arab political leadership declined partition in 1947 and failed to declare their own state in the part of the British Mandate that was allotted to them by the UN vote and it’s a pity so many Palestinian Arabs failed to heed the words of Israel’s Declaration of Independence where an appeal was made
        “to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

        Oh, well. Luckily for most of these Palestinian Arabs, the majority of them stayed within the borders of the former Palestine Mandate,albeit in areas that fell under Jordanian and Egyptian control. When and if they establish their state on part of those disputed areas, they should be able to welcome back any other Diaspora Palestinian who wants to live there. They do not have a right to demand any “right of return” into the sovereign territory of the State of Israel. It will never work that way.

        In addition to the nearly one million Jews who were expelled and dispossessed of their properties from Arab countries that were parties to the conflict and many of which participated in the invasion of Israel following its declaration of independence, more than 10,000 former Palestinian Jews were expelled by the Arab Legion from Jerusalem’s Old City and from other Jewish-populated villages in what became the Jordanian West Bank. Unlike Israel, where more than 100,000 Arabs remained after the signing of the various armistice agreements, the areas of the former British Mandate that were controlled by Hashemite Jordan remained Jew-free from 1949-1967 (with the exception of a small delegation that guarded the Hebrew University campus on Mt Scopus under UN auspices).

        Nothing is natural about Israel.

        It is completely natural for Jews to be independent in their ancestral homeland, that’s why we flourish and thrive in our country.

        You said it yourself that there were only a few authentic Palestinian Jews.

        No, I said that Palestinian Jews were those Jews who held British Palestinian citizenship between 1924-1948. Before 1917, about half of the Jews residing in what would become the Palestine Mandate were Ottoman citizens, not “Palestinians”. The rest held various foreign citizenships (Russian, Austro-Hungarian, French) and were under the protection of foreign consulates, although in many cases these were native-born Jews whose families had resided in Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, Sefad, etc. for many centuries. Whether they were former Ottoman subjects (like my Jerusalem-born grandparents) or held foreign passports, overnight, on August 6, 1925 they all became “authentic” Palestinians–and the same applied to Jews who had made aliyah more rely–like David ben Gurion. Just as these Jews all became “authentic Palestinians” on August 6 1925, they all became “authentic Israelis” on May 15, 1948. My father’s ancestors had lived in the country for centuries alongside Arabs, and speaking Arabic, but they were never Arabs but they were and they were only “authentically” Palestinian for just under 23 years, just like everyone else, whether Jews or Arabs, living under the Mandatory government.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 22, 2014, 8:48 pm

        ‘it’s a pity so many Palestinian Arabs failed to heed the words of Israel’s Declaration of Independence where an appeal was made
        “to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”’

        Difficult to heed those words when they were being driven from their homes by force of arms. Not much easier when they were prevented from returning by force of arms.

        “They do not have a right to demand any “right of return” into the sovereign territory of the State of Israel.”

        People driven from their homes have an obvious moral right to return to them.

      • pjdude
        pjdude on April 22, 2014, 10:23 pm

        Wow the array acne and bigotry here is amazing. The war that displaced was started by the zionists. It’s not a pity they rejected the partition it’s a pity you and yours waged a bloody war of conquest for a land you had no right to. The zionists had zero right do declare the state of israel. And you lived in Palestine you were Palestinian that you reject the identity to bolster the conqueror mentality is irrelevant deny a fact doesn’t alter it

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 21, 2014, 9:59 pm

        Taxi says:
        April 21, 2014 at 2:59 pm Come to think of it, I think it’s only zionists who use this term “Palestinian Arab” – using the word ‘Arab’ as a bogeyman’s cuss word? Covert racism?

        I guess the authors of the Palestine National Charter must have been Zionists then, because I counted the words “Palestinian Arab” appearing about 15 times . (“Arab Palestinian” shows up twice.)

        See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

        passim

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 21, 2014, 10:06 pm

        Taxi says:
        April 21, 2014 at 2:59 pm I think just using the word ‘Palestinian’ will do as reference. Why attach ‘Arab’ when it’s sooooo obvious that Palestinians ARE Arab. It’s a bit like calling a New York native: a New Yorker American.

        Not all Palestinians are Arab; although descendants of Jews who lived in the Mandate eschew a Palestinian identity (generally) there are Palestinian Armenians and Greeks.
        Other Arab countries have non-Arab ethnic minorities, although Syria defines itself explicitly as a “Syrian Arab Republic” there are also Syrian Kurds and Syrian Armenians as well as Syrian Arabs, Jordan has Circassians, so there are also non-Arabs among the Palestinians as well.

      • Taxi
        Taxi on April 22, 2014, 4:11 am

        Michael,

        The Republic of Lebanon doesn’t have the word ‘Arab’ in it and they’re Arabs. Same for The Sultanate of Oman. (There’s probably more but I don’t have time to research).

        Circassians are NOT from the Levant, they’re from the Russian-European border – weird to bunch them with Palestinians/Syrians/Jordanians (whatever their religion).

        Now, there’s Palestinian jews, Palestinian moslems, Palestinian christians, Druze; there’s Assyrians, Baha’i, Alawite, Bedouins – and a whole other host of religions and factions and ethnicities, in fact, EVERYONE who is a Levant native, pretty much lives in pretty much exactly the same Levantine culture way, have done so for millennia : god-fearing, farming/trading people, with various degrees of tribalism in every village across the Levant. They all also share variations on the same cuisine, colloquial language, social customs, music, folk history; they all share the same village lifestyle, even share the same moral gauge – despite the slicing up of the region, most notably the Sykes-Pico butchering of the Levantine borders.

        Point is, they’re pretty much all the same people who’ve been divided by the West. And I expect them to remain so: to live as Levantines, regardless of their labeling by others.

        Why not call “Palestinian Arabs”, Palestinian Levantians? That’s certainly more accurate to my experience of the region. The Levant culture after all is as prominent in these people as their Arabism.

        It’s crazy but it’s as if American states were divided into separate countries after thousands of years of being American – well they’re still gonna be living the American way regardless of what name the ‘dividers’ give them. That’s why Palestinians and Arab jews who’ve been israelified will continue to practice various Levantine cultural traits – be it in their kitchens or at weddings or funerals etc. Palestinian and other Arab jews can only embrace so much of Ashkanazism. Ashkanazism will remain an alien culture to Levantine jews – regardless of the current (and temporary) Ashkanzi cultural and political dominance of the holy land.

        Ashkanazim have zero connection to Levantine culture cuz they’re from Europe. And like other colonials before them, they are afraid of the re-unification of the Levant and it’s people so the word ‘Levant’ doesn’t even figure in their estimation or reference. Levant Arabs, as opposed to desert Arabs, share similarities to each other indeed, but they are not the same culturally, historically or in their physiognomy.

        But to get back to the original point: I have no doubt that zionist israelis loath the following words equally: Palestinian, Arab, and Levantine.

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 22, 2014, 7:44 pm

        Circassians are NOT from the Levant, they’re from the Russian-European border – weird to bunch them with Palestinians/Syrians/Jordanians (whatever their religion).

        There has been a Circassian/Adyghe presence in the region for a century and a half; they are a substantial minority in Jordan, Syria and Israel. Those Circassians in Israel tend to view themselves as proud Israeli citizens and serve in the IDF, in Jordan, too, they are loyal Jordanian citizens and soldiers, although they maintain their distinct Circassian cultural identity in both countries. To my knowledge there are no Circassians in the PA.

        Ashkanazim have zero connection to Levantine culture cuz they’re from Europe.

        Ashkenazim are direct descendants of Middle Eastern and Levantine Jews, who have preserved a Semitic culture and language for thousands of years in Europe. Moreover, Ashkenazim have been present in Eretz Yisrael for centuries. The earliest documented mass aliyah from the Ashkenazi cultural sphere occurred in the 13th century in the “Tosafists Aliyah” when hundreds of rabbis and their followers moved to Jerusalem from France, then the cradle of Ashkenazi culture. Ashkenazim continued to migrate back through the centuries, but there were large immigration waves of Ashkenazim beginning throughout the 18th and 19th centuries; Ashkenazim were a major part of the “Old Yishuv” (the Jewish community existing here prior to emergence of modern political Zionism).

        And like other colonials before them, they are afraid of the re-unification of the Levant

        A political reunification of the Levant countries is unlikely when the people within the largest Levant countries slaughter each other so profusely.

        Palestinian and other Arab jews can only embrace so much of Ashkanazism.

        There is no such word or thing as “Ashkenazism.”
        There are no longer any Palestinian Jews. Those Jews who once held Palestinian citizenship between 1924-1948, like my latefather, my late grandparents, aunts and uncles (descendants of Sefaradi and Mustarabim Jewish families that had resided in Jerusalem and Galilee for centuries) as well as more recent Jewish olim , all of whom had obtained Mandatory citizenship under the British in 1925, just as my my Hungarian-born mother and her parents obtained it upon arrival in the 1930s, all became proud Israeli citizens on 15 May 1948 and “Palestinian” Jews ceased to exist along with the Mandate that conferred that status upon them–just like my Jerusalem-born grandparents stopped being “Ottoman” Jews with the dissolution of that empire’s control.
        There is really no such thing as an Arab Jew in Israel, either, although a few people describe themselves as such, it is mostly to denote a language they or their ancestors once spoke.

        Ashkanazism will remain an alien culture to Levantine jews – regardless of the current (and temporary) Ashkanzi cultural and political dominance of the holy land..

        Israeli Jews, whether they are Ashkenazi, Sefaradi or Mizrahi descent, tend to see their fellow Jews as their co-nationals. Mizrahi and Sefaradi Jews in Israel work and study, marry and mate with Ashkenazi Jews (producing handsome and clever offspring such as yours truly), and will always view their fellow Israeli Jews who are Ashkenazim–not the “Palestinians,” not “the Arabs,” not the “Levantines” as their kin and countrymen. You are somewhat correct in the sense that “Ashkenazi” culture is on the wane in Israel, and the people who have done it in are largely the Ashkenazim themselves. As for Ashkenazi political dominance, with the sole exception of prime minister, non-Ashkenazi Jews have held each and every important political position in Israel–there have been Israeli Jews of Mizrahi/Sefaradi/North African backgrounds serving as foreign ministers, defence ministers, finance ministers, presidents, chief of general staff of the IDF, and state attorneys general for decades now. Additionally, Mizrahi/Sefaradi Jews are counted among the country’s business and financial elite, so it is simply false to allege that the country is politically and economically dominated solely by Ashkenazim.

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael on April 22, 2014, 8:02 pm

        But to get back to the original point: I have no doubt that zionist israelis loath the following words equally: Palestinian, Arab, and Levantine.

        Really, we just don’t care. Palestinian Arabs have developed a distinct national identity in recent decades that distinguishes them from other speakers of Levantine Arabic, they should have the right to self-determination in a nation-state framework of their own; that right doesn’t include ending the independent existence of the neighboring nation-state or dictating its national identity.

  5. Sumud
    Sumud on April 21, 2014, 2:33 am

    Hopefully we will hear from editor Pamela Paul with much proof, and if we are lucky also from Mr Walter Schimmerling of Washington, himself – author of the offensive letter.

    James have you contacted them inviting their contribution? Pamela Paul would be easy enough to contact, I did a search looking for more information about Schimmerling and I do get a Washington based NASA employee – possibly retired now, referenced in this 2002 UPI article:

    NASA has set a goal to improve radiation exposure predictions, understand how radiation affects the human body and design countermeasures so that low-Earth orbiting crewmembers can boost cumulative space missions to an average of 380 days in space, said Walter Schimmerling, head NASA’s radiation programs at the agency’s Washington, D.C. headquarters.

    A 2012 letter to the editor of American Physical Society from a Walter Schimmerling, Washington, DC mentions the nazis then ‘genocidal’ Iran and their nuclear programme, and Israel, so I presume it is the same ‘gentlemen’ masquerading as a scientist interested in facts [my emphasis]:

    Heisenberg joined the Nazi efforts to develop an atomic bomb and his latter-day colleagues in Iran are happily working on the development of nuclear weapons to serve their country’s genocidal objectives. Sakharov fathered the Soviet hydrogen bomb before he got religion and became a dissident. Oppenheimer was easily manipulated by Haakon Chevalier and ensnared by Buddhist mysticism. Philby, MacLean, Burgess and Blunt spied for the Soviet Union out of idealism. Linus Pauling developed vitamin C into a cult. Even the giants of physics, Newton and Einstein, did not always have “something special to share.” Newton delved into astrology when he was done with mechanics; when Einstein was asked to become the first president of Israel, the people who asked him had to worry about a worst-case scenario: that he might accept.

    From the same letter I will quote Mr Schimmerling, ironically he says:

    Furthermore, scientists outside their narrow field of specialization tend to be naifs.

    Various web searched only turn up one person in Washington so it probably is him…

  6. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby on April 21, 2014, 5:24 am

    Being under occupation, the question should rather be for the New york times: How many israeli-jews want to kill all palestinians?
    But asking such a question would be racist of course, how stupid of me..

    • unverified__e4ga8k54
      unverified__e4ga8k54 on April 21, 2014, 11:10 am

      And it would be even more racist to ask how many state-employed rabbis advocate the extermination of all non-Jews in “Israel”. For this reason I will refrain from even mentioning Rabbi Yisrael Ha-Yom.

      • Justpassingby
        Justpassingby on April 21, 2014, 12:43 pm

        Yes I dare NYtimes asking how many israeli jews want to kill all palestinians.

  7. wondering jew
    wondering jew on April 21, 2014, 5:28 am

    Hamas’s charter quotes the infamous Hadith regarding the ultimate war between Muslims and Jews. Here are links to that quote and other quotes by individuals from Hamas’s clergy:

    http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=58

    http://archive.adl.org/

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka on April 21, 2014, 7:37 am

      “Hamas’s charter quotes the infamous Hadith regarding the ultimate war between Muslims and Jews.”

      So what? Isreal’s rhetoric is full of discussion of Amalek, the Jews as “Chosen People” and the land as being “promised by God.” Are we to believe, from that, that the Jews (or maybe just the Jews of Israel), full of a belief that they are “Chosen” and that the land is theirs by divine fiat, have the intent of committing a genocide, simply because of the reference in their religious texts? Or, use the parlance of the NYT’s bigoted reader, that “Israeli Jews have avowed as their goal the killing of all Palestinians”?

      • annie
        annie on April 21, 2014, 9:07 am

        woody, yonah’s point…. is that the infamous king’s torah, that gentile baby killing manual, speaks for all israeli jews. and i heard any day now ADL is going to publish selected excerpts from that israeli best seller. and yonah will helpfully link to those excerpts when they do and then he’ll also helpfully link to a ‘jewwatch’ anti semitic hate site with a glaring headline about the “genocide ideology” of jews,again just to be helpful. (snark!) yonah is defending the nyt letter writer! or the nyt? ahh!

    • Cliff
      Cliff on April 21, 2014, 9:51 am

      Wondering Jew,

      You cite Palwatch.

      Is it now ok for us to cite Jewwatch or David Duke or Stormfront or VNN?

      @Phil Weiss, and whoever allows these comments to go through…

      You censor me if I curse in my comment. Yet, you allow Wondering Jew and the other Zionist trolls to post comments that cite hate-sites.

      For god’s sakes, the name of the website is PALWATCH!

      What is wrong with you Phil? How can you cover issues like hate speech – and then allow hate speech to fester in the comments section?

      Yet you censor me because I talk like a sailor.

      Wondering Jew is a racist and a Jewish supremacist. He is a typical Zionist antisemite as well, referring to Judaism as ‘a corporation’.

      That is the context of his whining and histrionics regarding some MW commentators allegedly saying ‘Jews should abandon Judaism’.

      There are Zionist Jews who advocate killing non-Jews. There are plenty of Zionist Jews who – while they do not explicitly say Jews have a ‘right’ to kill non-Jews when they see fit – advocate other violent actions informed by a hatred of The Other.

      You cite Hamas as if Hamas = Palestine, Palestinian, Palestinian solidarity.

      Palestinian political agency is fractured. Zionist political agency IS NOT – and moreover the most vulgar parts of Zionist political agency in America and elsewhere are vulgar right out in the open where we can all see.

      Right out in the open – yet no one in your camp gives a damn. It’s defended, whitewashed or ignored.

      Muslim charities are banned and their founders imprisoned on the suspicions of connections to Hamas.

      ‘Jewish’ charities openly violate IHL by supporting the JNF and by supporting the IDF.

      There is NO comparison between you and your cohorts and the Palestinians.

      Zionism is the source of this conflict, not the Hamas charter.

      The Hamas charter is an excuse – in a long line of excuses that you and your camp use to steal more land or prolong the conflict while inflicting more ‘facts on the ground’.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew on April 21, 2014, 1:24 pm

      i was responding to james north’s request. i was not commenting on the conflict in any degree, if i were prime minister i would seek to include hamas in a peace process. i think the letter to the new york times was stupid to include and so that’s my opinion of the source of the topic.

      sorry for quoting palwatch. i googled hamas charter genocide and it was one of the first choices. solely on that i used that web source.

  8. talknic
    talknic on April 21, 2014, 6:49 am

    @ yonah fredman and co do stupid and arrogance 101

    Hamas (1987) are a response to Israeli aggression, a response to Israel illegally acquiring non-Israeli territory by war. A response to the stupidity of the Zionist Movement‘s state and its illegal policies
    252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980

    When you dispossess people, illegally acquire their territory by war, slaughter them, occupy them, they’re very likely to want to fight back, kill you and your stupid thieving friends even if you are Jews.

    To maintain the pretense of a valid argument morons for Israel’s continued intransigence MUST of course ignore the obvious. The Hamas Charter Art 31 does explain.

    Article Thirty-One: “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8).

  9. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield on April 21, 2014, 8:06 am

    “Wanting to kill Jews” could mean all sorts of things. It might refer to occasional revenge fantasies, which I would expect at least some Palestinians to have in view of the way self-identified “Jews” (i.e., Zionists) treat them. That is not the same as having the “avowed goal” of killing Jews. That is so far removed from any empirically verifiable reality that it is necessary to focus on the pathology that produces the statement rather than the statement itself.

    So what can we say about that pathology? First, Zionist indoctrination presents Arabs/Palestinians as the most recent in the series of enemies (Haman, Hitler etc.) who have the “avowed goal” of killing Jews. It is axiomatic that if they “stand against us” they must want to kill us. They are also directly linked to the Holocaust as “Hitler’s heirs.”

    Second, Zionists are also taught to be incapable of distinguishing between the State of Israel as an institution and “the Jews” as a collectivity (to make that distinction would legitimize criticism of Israel). Therefore the undoubted fact that many Palestinians still at some level “want” to destroy the State of Israel can only mean that they “want to kill all Jews.” Pressed to provide some documentary evidence, the letter writer would probably quote some declaration from a Palestinian organization about “eliminating the Zionist entity” and insist that meant killing all Jews.

    A lot more could be said along similar lines. There is also the possibility of projection.

  10. amigo
    amigo on April 21, 2014, 8:32 am

    Palestinians want to kill any IDF thug who breaks into his/her house and beat his/her relatives and drags his /her children off to prison or drives a bulldozer over his/her house or murders his/her siblings to name just a few legal and justifiable reasons for wanting to kill the enemy.

    As to killing Jews just because they are Jews, that is pure hyperbole and base propaganda.

    It is notable to recall the 10 to 1 ratio of Palestinian deaths v Israel,s Jews.

    • on April 21, 2014, 8:57 am

      10 to 1? Has it not been more like 100 to 1 for the past 8 years?

      • Sumud
        Sumud on April 21, 2014, 11:30 am

        Actually that ratio is probably correct.

        During the second intifada it was around 6 to 10/1 – with Israel killing more than 10 Palestinian children for each Israeli child killed. But once suicide bombings were abandoned in the mid-2000s Israeli deaths tapered down a lot but Palestinian deaths didn’t. For example Israel killed almost as many Gazans in the 3 years after they ostensibly “withdrew” in 2005 as they did during the bloodbath in 2008/2009.

        It would be nice if Abbas put Palestinian security front and centre of Kerry’s ill-fated negotiaions, and mentioned statistics on Israel’s murderous behaviour at every press conference he gives. Just cold hard numbers – Israeli dead vs Palestinian dead for the last 5 years.

      • Sumud
        Sumud on April 21, 2014, 10:37 pm

        Statistics from B’Tselem:

        In the five years from the end of ‘Operation Cast Lead’ until 28th February this year, across mandate Palestine 562 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security or civilians, and 37 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians.

        The kill ratio for that period is around 15 to 1.

      • Sumud
        Sumud on April 21, 2014, 10:44 pm

        Including fatalities during Cast Lead from B’Tselem of 1398 vs 9 the totals add to 1960 Palestinians killed vs 46 Israelis killed, a kill ratio of 42.6 to 1.

      • amigo
        amigo on April 22, 2014, 8:21 am

        Thanks for the update Sumud.

        Pretty horrific numbers aren,t they.

      • on April 22, 2014, 8:31 am

        I honestly doubt that 37 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians during that period. We seem to hear every time an Israeli is killed.

  11. JeffB
    JeffB on April 21, 2014, 9:46 am

    @James

    What would count as a yes? Generally genocidal movements don’t call themselves genocidal movements. Let’s take some famous quotes:

    (this battle will be)…followed by more severe battles until Palestine is liberated and the Zionist presence ended.” ( Mahmoud Zubi of Syria 1967) Does that count or not count? I suspect most Zionists and Jews would consider that a genocidal threat. The same as if an American general talked about eliminating the Iraqi presence in Iraq. On the other hand I suspect most BDSers would considers this more along the line of a statement to end the Ba’ath in Iraq, violent regime change but not the elimination of peoples.

    This is a really a good quintessential example. Because most of the language taken as genocidal isn’t explicitly genocidal.

    ____

    Or to take another example, “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood” ( Nasser 1965). Here the call for massive violence is explicit but there is no explicit call for total destruction.

    Does that count? What about a speech with both of these elements, would that count?

    ____

    Now let’s take a more modern example. Hamas has a doctrine of 3 circles where any resolution to the conflict needs to consider: the Palestinian, the Arab and the Islamic. Clearly Russian Jews are in pretty bad shape since death is quite explicit, “Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission. (Hamas charter). On the other hand one could argue that Islamic governments don’t have a history of genocide and that even this rhetoric doesn’t qualify. Or take another example from the charter, “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

    Let’s take another example the PLO charter, “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.” There is a pretty clear negative inference to be made regarding the other 99% of the Israeli population. But it is an inference.

    Basically before we start this exercise what would you be willing to count as a call for genocide?

    • Qualtrough
      Qualtrough on April 21, 2014, 12:01 pm

      JeffB–none of what you wrote comes even close to addressing the question posed here, namely, can anyone provide evidence that, “Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews.”

    • Cliff
      Cliff on April 21, 2014, 12:43 pm

      @JeffB

      Israel kills Palestinian civilians at a ratio of 5 to 1. Children at a ratio of 10 to 1.

      Israel is the occupier and colonizer – not the Palestinians.

      Israel is the oppressor – not the Palestinians.

      No amount of Zio-verbiage or Hamas stupidity is going to change that.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on April 22, 2014, 8:44 am

        @Cliff

        Israel kills Palestinian civilians at a ratio of 5 to 1. Children at a ratio of 10 to 1.

        True. We are discussing rhetoric not reality on the ground.

        Israel is the occupier and colonizer – not the Palestinians.

        How do you think the Palestinians got that country in the 6th and 7th century? Israel is the more recent colonizer that’s all. All people are colonizers. That despite the fact that mass migration / settler colonialism is very different from classic colonialism and it is silly to use the same word for both. As for occupier … that is UN silliness. Israel’s behavior in the West Bank is totally inconsistent with an occupation.

        Israel is the oppressor – not the Palestinians.

      • eljay
        eljay on April 22, 2014, 8:59 am

        >> How do you think the Palestinians got that country in the 6th and 7th century?

        When Zio-supremacists aren’t busy defending their country by comparing it to Saudi Arabia, Mali or African “hell-holes”, they’re busy reaching back to the 6th and 7th centuries (?!) to justify their and their country’s 20th-21st century, on-going (war) crimes. Amazing.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on April 22, 2014, 9:12 am

        When Zio-supremacists aren’t busy defending their country by comparing it to Saudi Arabia, Mali or African “hell-holes”, they’re busy reaching back to the 6th and 7th centuries (?!) to justify their and their country’s 20th-21st century, on-going (war) crimes.

        And they then tout this as evidence of Israel’s success. Wait till they try and make slavery cool.

      • James Canning
        James Canning on April 22, 2014, 7:50 pm

        The Palestinians were already in Palestine, when the Arabs defeated the Byzantine Empire and took control.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on April 22, 2014, 8:59 am

        How do you think the Palestinians got that country in the 6th and 7th century?

        Some by being forced to convert from Judaism and Christianity to Islam. After all, they share the same DNA and indigenous Jews.

        Israel is the more recent colonizer that’s all. All people are colonizers.

        Stupid argument. People used to be slave traders and they stopped. Colonization went out of vogue in the 19th century, but as Tony Judt put it, Israel thinks it should be exempt from international law and international norms because it missed out on the 19th century.

        As for occupier … that is UN silliness. Israel’s behavior in the West Bank is totally inconsistent with an occupation.

        Only insofar as it violates the rules of occupation. And no, it’s not UN silliness. Then president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, in a High Court of Justice ruling from 2005 (Alfei Menashe), makes a fool of you:

        “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation… His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907… These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949… The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention… We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions.”

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976 on April 22, 2014, 10:01 am

        I don’t think that the Palestinians got the country at any point by excluding large numbers of those who had previously lived there. What happened at various times was changes of ruling dynasty and consequently changes in religion.
        Not that the rights operative at any time depend on how ancestors arrived: I’m descended, no doubt, from quite a few different waves of invaders of England but I would argue, if challenged, that I do have a right to exist here. That does not imply that no one has any rights or that only might is right, which I would deny. Since rights do exist they should not be violated (otherwise they would not be rights), and if violated they can be re-asserted at any time (otherwise might would be right) until they are laid down/renounced by means of some agreement or contract. At that rate refugees have a right of return until they lay it down per agreement and those who are in place because rights were violated do not have a right to remain until they acquire it per agreement. Agreements of this kind should sometimes be made to avoid endless trouble. Locke as I remember uses the phrase ‘endless trouble’ in his discussion of conquest in his Second Treatise and I am somewhat softening his views because he seems to think that endless trouble should sometimes be endured rather than have rights permanently mocked.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on April 22, 2014, 9:16 pm

        @Shingo

        Some by being forced to convert from Judaism and Christianity to Islam. After all, they share the same DNA and indigenous Jews.

        People do have sex with one another even if they belong to different religions. Of course they share the same DNA with the indigenous Jews, that proves nothing about what happened in the 6th and 7th centuries.

        Stupid argument. People used to be slave traders and they stopped. Colonization went out of vogue in the 19th century,…

        The claim was made that Palestinians are not colonizers. Everyone and every species except of anaerobic bacteria are a colonizer or every square inch of this planet’s surface and its oceans. Almost every single society got where it through murder and displacement.

        Only insofar as it violates the rules of occupation. And no, it’s not UN silliness. Then president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, in a High Court of Justice ruling from 2005 (Alfei Menashe), makes a fool of you:

        No he disagrees with me. And there is a difference.

      • puppies
        puppies on April 22, 2014, 11:00 am

        @JeffG – One day you’ll have time to learn some basics, like differences in meaning between colonization, occupation, proselytizing, conversion, cohabitation, etc. Perhaps much later you’ll also get a whiff of a shadow of knowledge of history. Meanwhile, stick to what you know.

    • Sumud
      Sumud on April 21, 2014, 12:46 pm

      The same as if an American general talked about eliminating the Iraqi presence in Iraq

      Correction:

      The same as if an Iraqi talked about eliminating the American presence in Iraq.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on April 22, 2014, 9:16 pm

        @Sumud

        No Sumud I meant what I wrote.

    • Zofia
      Zofia on April 21, 2014, 2:26 pm

      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.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976 on April 21, 2014, 4:21 pm

        Well, I do think that the permanent exclusion of so many Palestinians and the permanent reduction to (at least) second class status of the rest, with no recognisable equal-terms share of sovereignty over even a square foot of soil, amount indeed to ‘genocide’ in an understandable sense of that word, even if (as has not been the case!) no individual person had ever got killed in the process. A political sub-genus of the overall genus humanum was eliminated quite long ago and until this day: not absorbed into a larger ‘bi-national’ whole nor even restricted within new borders under some sort of 2ss but undeservedly removed from existence and never yet restored. Some would say that groups and genera do not suffer but the experience of the genus had to amount to enormous suffering for huge numbers of individuals.

      • Zofia
        Zofia on April 21, 2014, 4:54 pm

        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.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976 on April 21, 2014, 5:56 pm

        Slippery sliding between different definitions causes a lot of problems! Meanwhile thanks for much valuable information.

      • Cliff
        Cliff on April 22, 2014, 8:20 am

        Zofia,

        I’m glad you’re here at MW.

      • brenda
        brenda on April 21, 2014, 7:09 pm

        Zofia, you are magnificent!

      • JeffB
        JeffB on April 22, 2014, 9:10 am

        @Zofia

        I think you may want to take a look at the context. The first 2 of the 4 quotes were made by dead people and the post was about “what would count”. You are asking a different question about what is Hamas’ current policy behind the scenes. That was a side point but I did say, “On the other hand one could argue that Islamic governments don’t have a history of genocide“. So if the point of dispute is whether Hamas is likely to be genocidal if we imagined a hypothetical where they had the power to act on their rhetoric (where I’m using genocide in the proper sense) I’d say they would be more likely to engage in violent repression and ethnic cleansing but not full on genocide. But that’s irrelevant to the point about rhetoric.

        So now with that in mind let’s respond.

        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.

        That’s fine. When Hamas formally retracts the charter or releases a new one or releases formal documents of equal importance that indicate new objectives then it is perfectly permissible to dismiss them. Until that time this document on April 22, 2014 is their existent statement of purpose and summary of their positions.

        the Charter does not represent the views of the present leadership.

        Where can I find statements that refute aspects of the charter that are official?

        earlier it blamed ZIONISTS for the social problems: alcohol and drugs. That is the context of the quote.

        Killing all 6.1m Zionists is still genocidal.

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

        I agree.

        Their 2005 electoral platform

        An electoral platform is a different sort of document than a charter. An electoral platform is about near to mid term goals a charter is a statement of ultimate principles. So for example if Rand Paul were to win the Republican party nomination his charter might list things like repeal of the income tax and a return to usage taxes while the electoral platform likely wouldn’t.

        That being said the electoral platform does end with a charter like statement: ISLAM IS THE SOLUTION AND IS OUR PATH TO CHANGES AND REFORM. OUR PLATFORM IS OUR WAY TO ENHANCE THE BUILDING OF THE SOCIETY WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY THE OCCUPATION. THE SAFEGUARDING OF RESISTANCE AND ITS AGENDA IS THE WAY TO STRENGTHEN NATIONAL AND ISLAMIC UNITY – ON THE WAY TO COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL LIBERATION. THIS IS THE PLATFORM OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE AND HOMELAND. (caps in original)

        The Israelis have, for example, translated the outdated Charter to several languages,but NOT the NEW DOCUMENTS, ask yourself why…

        To propagandize against Hamas. That’s their job. The agency responsible for presenting a counter narrative is Hamas.

        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.

        Absolutely true. But that wasn’t the question in the main article.

        I’ll hit the charter in the next response.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on April 22, 2014, 9:34 am

        @Zofra (part 2)

        It is quite understandable that Palestinians will question the presence of Zionist immigrants in their land

        Quite understandable. That’s not the question. The question is arguably a denial that the PLO’s stated policy was a violent ethnic cleansing “pushing Jews into the sea”.

        what Zionists actually did with the Palestinian population represents much worse policy in this respect, don’t you think?

        I don’t know. The Arab uprisings were genocidal. 1947-9 was ethnic cleansing.

        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!.

        Of course that should be equated with killing Jews. Who do you think Zionists are, martians? Killing Zionists is killing Jews it is the same thing. This whole argument is like saying it would be fine to nuke France because you would be killing the French people just French language speakers.

        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.

        The document said the exact opposite of that. That might be your intention but it was not the intention of the document. The document unequivocally endorsed racial discrimination. Jews where were of the wrong race (non-Palestinian) were to be treated entirely different than those who were of the right race.

        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.

        At that time the overwhelming majority of the Israeli population didn’t have respective countries. By any reasonable definition of nationality: shared language, shared culture, shared history…. they were most certainly a nationality or at least well on their way to being a nationality.

        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

        I agree with you this has been officially nullified. That being said I think the Palestinians have been a bit disingenuous on what recognition means. For example recognizing Israel as a Jewish state flare up indicates there is still a lack of clarity in what the recognition means.

        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.

        I agree. The PLO/PA is clear (though unrealistic). The Israelis are lying their asses off.

      • Zofia
        Zofia on April 22, 2014, 6:21 pm

        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….

      • JeffB
        JeffB on April 22, 2014, 9:09 pm

        @Zofia

        It doesn’t matter how Hamas works internally. When they publish a charter that is a statement of principles. Lots of people can write books about what governing authorities “really mean”. Certainly there are all sorts of interpretations of various statement by USA officials. But… the ultimate authority is the legislative body itself. I want to know about Hamas I care about what the Majlis al-Shura, Ismail Haniyah, Khaled Mashal I don’t care what some author says.

        If you want to play the game: “what would count”-

        Yes that was my response to the article. That was the point of my response.

        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?

        I don’t know what you are talking about. But that sounds reasonable to me why should Israel provide ammunition to its enemies?

        All over internet we have quotes that could easily be categorised as genocidal.

        I don’t deny that. The article was about the Palestinian side not about the Israeli side.

        Comparing it to Zionists who actually committed genocide

        The Zionist most certainly did not commit genocide. They did an ethnic cleansing. There is a tendency to define crimes down so that they become meaningless but the Zionist went to great lengths to allow the Palestinians to march away, that’s not genocide.

        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.

        Which is fine. The measure was considered and rejected. Happens all the time in governments. Measures considered and rejected though are not treated like they passed. I consider the theory that making changes to a charter is a “concession” to be ludicrous. But my considering it ludicrous doesn’t change Hamas’ position. And similarly your or any author’s position on the charter doesn’t change the charter.

        So if you choose to ignore their actual politics

        If there actual politics were totally inconsistent with the charter then I wouldn’t ignore them. That would constitute a repudiation of the charter. However Hamas’ actual policies that are generally consistent with the charter or ambiguous. So for example if Hamas converted to Hinduism and encouraged a Hindu society in Gaza then whether they changed the charter or not I’d consider them to have repudiated a clearly muslim document. But it has got to be a very clear repudiation like that for policies to constitute repudiation of a document.

        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

        Hamas did that? They took over an existing society that was already Muslim and leaning towards fundamentalism and managed it badly. They most certainly never built a society. And they most certainly never handled people who disagree with them without violence whether it Fatah, gays, Islamic liberals, Christians…

        Zionism for them was an ideology. They didn’t equate local Jews with those who called themselves Zionist

        That idea is ridiculous. If Jews aren’t Zionists who are the Zionists, Martians? Come on now. The fact that the word “Zionist”, “Israeli” and “Jew” are used interchangeably shows pretty clearly the words are referring to the same people. If “the Zionist entity” isn’t Israel what state is it? If the inhabitants of the “the Zionists entity” aren’t Jews who are they? If Zionists didn’t build the Zionist entity what did they build? If the Jews of Israel didn’t subscribe to the Zionist political ideology what political ideology do they subscribe to?

        Hamas isn’t stupid, the PLO isn’t stupid. The statement of expulsion of the Zionists don’t make sense in some abstract context.

        . In 1948 the Palestinian Declaration of Independence called for a 1 state, against the Zionist policy not Jews

        Really so statements like “England administered Palestine in a manner which enabled the Jews to flood it with immigrants and helped them to settle in the country” weren’t part of the declaration?

        that is why today Izrael has problems with the definition of nationhood, citizenship, jewishness, etc)

        No they don’t. I don’t like their Israel’s definition and I don’t agree with them on a question fact (that global Jewry is a nation). But is their facts not their definitions that are at question. Their definitions are entirely mainstream.

        The Arab uprisings were genocidal- hahaha rly? how did you come up with that?

        Jews caught in the uprisings died. The attacks were against the Jewish population indiscriminate towards civilians and civilian property. The declared purpose was to end Jewish immigration and send the settlers back…

        READ about Arab nationalism for cryin’ out loud.

        I’ve read plenty on Ba’ath / Arab nationalism. That doesn’t contradict what I’m saying.

        “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

        No I don’t know that. In 1968 most of them were children or grandchildren of immigrants. In 1968 the population of Israel was 2.8m. The total number of immigrants 1948-68 is slightly over 1m. This is all public data.

        So unless you want to argue that the PLO can’t do basic arithmetic then they did not believe the Jewish population was mainly immigrants. What the PLO was calling for was the premeditated murder of millions of people who had no tie to any other land. Heck that opinion is still popular, you still frequently here Arab say that the Israelis should “go back to Poland” even though only a tiny fraction of them are immigrants.

        “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

        What is means is a formal recognition of Israel as the rightful home to the Jewish people, and a rejection of Palestinian claim. Which is what they are asking the Jews to do with the West Bank and Gaza where Israel relinquishes all claim. It is necessary to do that if there are going to be 2 states.

    • traintosiberia
      traintosiberia on April 21, 2014, 3:40 pm

      “In Israel, a non Jew permitted to stay there,must accept paying a tax and suffering the humiliation of servitude” by Mordechai Nisan. Lecturer Hebrew University of Jerusalem ,publishing in Kivunim ,officially publication of WZO in 1984 relying upon the advices of Maimonides. He continued” non Jews will not be allowed to hold offices or power over Jews. If they refuse to live in inferiority ,then this signals their rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Jewish warfare against their very presence in the land of Israel”
      Page 73. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

      The primitive ideas of Maimonides were revived by the intellectual . The resurrected ideas were then put into practice by the agitation of Gush Emunim and undertaken by NRP . This view is further expressed in demand ” all non Jewish residents of the Jewish state be dealt with according to Halachic regulation”
      These entities don’t call Jewish killer of Palestinians as murderer and help them get out of secular court on the ground that the Jews who killed Arab should not be punished.
      NRP and Gush Emunim attitude to non Jews shape the policies of Israel in occupied territories and how the war would be targeted against the civilians of the neighboring countries.
      Former Knesset member does not see any reason in Arab behaviors other than Antisemitic hatred and stupidity to be saved by the Jews – ” Arab hostility springs ,like all antisemitism ,from the world’s recalcitrance to be saved by the Jews” _Eiezer Waldman a Emunim leader .

      Today similar stupid fanatic religious argument with some sprinkling of history of last 3000 yrs are joined by Caroline Glick in Florida in this video –
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_63GLG15hBo to a neoconservative body in 2013.

      There is attack on Palestine from both religious and secular Zionist and both aim at same goal – destroying Palestine as an entity.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on April 21, 2014, 4:37 pm

        “Today similar stupid fanatic religious argument with some sprinkling of history of last 3000 yrs are joined by Caroline Glick in Florida in this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_63GLG15hBo to a neoconservative body in 2013.”

        Holy moly. I always understood Caroline Glick to be awful, but she is absolutely bat-crap crazy and a raving racist as well. Oh, lord, the woman must have been fed a side of lead paint with every meal during her childhood. She’s a raving lunatic.

      • Keith
        Keith on April 21, 2014, 5:21 pm

        WOODY TANAKA- “She’s a raving lunatic.”

        The video shocked me as well, in fact, I couldn’t bear to watch the whole thing. If she was just one sick individual, it might be pitiable, however, we need to keep in mind that she is a respected member of the US/Israel intelligentsia, an ideological fundamentalist. As I commented when I first saw the link (Two desperate anti-Semitism charges….), she would have made one hell of a Nazi. She and her ilk scare me.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia on April 21, 2014, 9:17 pm

        Yes .it really sounds insane. But she also informs us in this speech that she had opportunity of sharing thoughts with people like the father of Netanyahu,with Noble laureate in economics and with sores of those neocons who came to listen to her. They applauded her. In addition ,her opinion as an editor in Jerusalem Post have reached thousands of Israeli citizen. She continues to influence both the government and the public opinion.

        With this arcane,racist,illogic,and fanatic obsession with the God given moral and intellectual superiority ,bestowed some 3000 yrs ago to her alleged religious forefathers and prophets and ,according to her assertions , transmitted unadulterated to every Jews down since then point to the possibility of very genocidal behavior on the part of deranged settlers movement , the very genocide that she came to condemn . She also blames every civilization that rose and fell in that part of he world, of embracing the “genocidal lust”to Jews and passing that to the next generation all the way to the current one. She talks of the failures of every non Jews in accepting the reason that was evident in choosing ( by god) the Jews from time immemorial until today and the inability of the non Jews of recognizing the sacredness inherent in this facts of embracing the Jews by God . She then blames that jealousy and lack of understanding of the uniqueness of the Jews for the genocidal antisemite behaviors of every race,religion,tribes,civilization .

        A Christian preacher or a Muslim imam saying this kind of thongs will be barred from certain European countries,will be ridiculed by MSNBC,and Huffington Post,and be shamed by CNN and NYT.

        The reality is this that she happens to be accepted as an expert,intellectual,and one of them by the war mongers neocon.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on April 22, 2014, 7:33 am

        Agreed. she is seriously messed up. When she was referring to “Pharaoh” as if it was a name and not a title, I realized that she actually believe that the character in the Bible story was actually real and historical and, frighteningly, probably believes that the events depicted in that story actually occurred. The fact that anyone in this day and age could believe that the Exodus story is historical is really insane.
        and anyone who name checks Benzion Netanyahu is really not paying attention. Here was someone who was supposedly concerned that every generation genocidal bloodlust is raised against the Jews but when, as a 29-year-old, perhaps the most anti-Semitic regime in history and certainly in the 20th century, started a war, did Netanyahu jump into uniform and fight this antisemitic foe??? No, better men went off to fight and die. This coward ran off to New York to aid the lunatic Jabotinsky.
        My opinion is that Benzion’s cowardice in the face of the Nazi threat was such that he was haunted by it and I had to come up with some sort of academic excuse to excuse his cowardice. so he decided on the insane notion that “every generation anti-Jewish genocidal bloodlust is raised” so as to portray his work in attempting to wrest Palestine from its rightful owner to create a Zionist State as more important than actually fighting the Nazis, as, in his mind, this fantasy of repeated genocides could be halted by the establishment of a Jewish state.
        Complete nonsense of course, and shows the length to which he could advocate evil in order to salve his cowardly conscience. He was a very, very pathetic man

      • Ecru
        Ecru on April 22, 2014, 5:27 am

        WOW!

        Bedlam – one of your inmates is missing!

        This woman is not only completely deranged but also very badly educated going on this (internally illogical) speech. Obviously she’s never read a Greek tragedy or heard of Magna Carta. Also doesn’t seem to have caught the memo that Exodus NEVER HAPPENED!

        But what’s worrying is THIS is the philosophy that dominates Zionism, THIS is the thinking behind AIPAC and its donors. THIS (given the figures of Jewish support for Israel) is increasingly seen as the face not just of Zionism but of modern Judaism itself.

      • G. Seauton
        G. Seauton on April 21, 2014, 5:34 pm

        Carolyn Glick is a true believer, and she is fundamentally delusional. All Jews (and any others, for that matter) who think the way she does are delusional as well. (Just call me Captain Obvious.)

      • Ellen
        Ellen on April 21, 2014, 11:05 pm

        Glick is loved by many. And many think she should run for PM of Israel. She might and she has good chances to win. Astonishing, but that is the world we are in.

      • annie
        annie on April 22, 2014, 6:09 am

        she acts and sounds like she’s on drugs, like she just snorted a thick line of coke. i’m not joking. she’s scary weird.

  12. lando
    lando on April 21, 2014, 10:08 am

    As a Palestinian, I need to clarify something.

    I’d say we never thought of the Jewish population as Israelis. The Aliyahs preceded the creation of Israel obviously. Jewish population of Palestine were called Jews by Palestinian Arabs. Israel was created and the Arabs kept on calling the Jewish population Jews (yahood, the word in Arabic). In colloquial Palestinian Arabic, Israelis are referred to as Jews. Example in a sentence “The Jews just burned those olive trees”. In the documentary “Five Broken Cameras”, if I am not mistaken, the Israelis were mostly referred to as Jews. Peace workers, IDF members, political figures, etc. It did not matter who you are, you won’t be called Israeli. The creation of the state of Israel did not change the term being used to refer to the Jews in that area by Arabs.

    That is not to say that the words Israel/Israelis are not used at all. They are mostly used in official statements/speeches. Hamas will use it for its own propaganda, same as Abbas. News articles will include the word Israel/Israeli (sometimes they are replaced with the Zionist entity or Zionists). Aljazeera (and various Arabic media sources including Palestinian ones) always referred to the IDF for example as “the Israeli occupation military”. They do not use the word Jewish.

    • puppies
      puppies on April 21, 2014, 10:33 am

      @lando – Timely clarification.
      “The creation of the state of Israel did not change the term being used to refer to the Jews in that area by Arabs.”

      And why should it? That is exactly how the Zionists did present themselves and continue to do so. So what’s the indictment? That they do get called what they asked to be called? You just can’t please some people…

    • refugee47
      refugee47 on April 21, 2014, 11:05 am

      I’m Palestinian and I don’t want to kill all Jews . Matter fact I don’t know any Palestinians that want to kill all Jews .

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield on April 21, 2014, 4:40 pm

      So far as I can see, no one on either side of this conflict insists on killing those on the other side. At the most, they may want them to go away and stay away from Palestine/Eretz Israel, thereby eliminating their presence. That is the maximum. The danger of killing arises only because a lot of them refuse to go away. As for those who have gone away or never came in the first place, they don’t have a presence to be eliminated, so why kill them? Even the most fanatical Zionist or jihadist isn’t interested in killing all Arabs or Jews everywhere. The conflict is confined to a specific geographical area.

  13. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    ThorsteinVeblen2012 on April 21, 2014, 11:13 am

    If Palestinians have been so committed to killing all the Jews and running them out of Palestine that would have been accomplished any time over the last 1,000 years.

    Zionism would have been ended at the shoreline and David Ben-Gurion would have been just another statistic when he stepped of the boat in 1906.

    Muslim history in intertwined with Jewish history throughout the region.

  14. The JillyBeans
    The JillyBeans on April 21, 2014, 11:14 am

    There is an eatery in my Los Angeles neighborhood, it’s run by a Palestinian and an American Jew. They are around knives and hot stoves all day. The American Jew is very much alive after all these years.

    This layman concludes that at least in my neighborhood, I have found at least on Palestinian who does not want to kill all Jews. Now that I think of it, several of the patrons are Jews and Arabs, so far no carnage has been reported at this eatery in the ten years I’ve lived by it.

  15. US Citizen
    US Citizen on April 21, 2014, 11:47 am

    I think the bigger question that should be counter-posed is how many Jews want to kill Palestinians ? The kill ratio is 10 Palestinians to 1 Jew. The illegal settler squats go after Palestinians everyday not to mention the night raid and detentions that occur every day and night. Someone ought to rebuttal this idiotic and erroneous statement of Pamela Paul’s with the facts.

  16. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia on April 21, 2014, 11:49 am

    NYT does not pick up the most sensational revelation on the earth , that is the story of the theft of the nuclear material by Israel.The intelligence told that those stolen uranium was in the Israeli atomic bomb . FBI was asked by AEC The precursor to NEC asked FBI not to open an investigation. FBI did not open any investigation http://thebulletin.org/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-uranium-united-states7056
    The reason provided by AEC was a diversionary tactics to mask Israeli shadow and to let the spying continue.

    Given the hysteria over Iran for last 11 yrs and given the manufactured fear of Pakistan selling to rogue nation or terrorists , one would assume that NYT fully embracing those concerns would at least review the evidences ,review the books,and ask government why Nethanhu but not an Iranian would not be allowed to enter US and ask the government why FBI would not investigate? Who was the mole? What that ring of moles are doing today? What else are they sabotaging?

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/secrets-about-suspected-israeli-theft-of-us-weapons-grade-nuclear-material-declassified—irmep-252658041.html

  17. Baldur
    Baldur on April 21, 2014, 1:34 pm

    This is an excellent project. Only the future will tell how crucial these efforts for accurate journalism on the I/P issue will turn out to be – I have high hopes, and I think the prime reason the journalistic climate in the US is so shifted to the “pro-Israel” (in reality, more like “pro-Likud”) side is that they are much more vocal complainers if papers such as the NYT doesn’t paint exactly the picture they want. It’s easy to pander to vocal, militant people if there is no one out there demanding the real truth. This is a grass-roots justice effort at it’s finest. Many thanks, Mondoweiss!

  18. mojo1
    mojo1 on April 21, 2014, 1:54 pm

    I am a Palestinian who have long been suffering from the Zionist occupation, colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Palestinians. Zionism hijacked the Jewish identity and many Jews are fighting on our side – the right side of history. We do not “want” to kill ANYONE. We just want to return to our homeland, end the occupation, live in justice, in peace and serenity.

    • Kay24
      Kay24 on April 22, 2014, 1:43 am

      Many sympathize with the Palestinians at least outside the US. They know the truth, because it is not blurred like it is in the US. I do not fault the Palestinians for trying to get out of this brutal occupation. I am ashamed that my tax money goes to aid and abet this evil zionist nation. I really wish more nations, especially the Arab nations would use their clout and genuinely help your people. You have suffered for too long, lost so much, and still do on a daily basis. The zionist use every excuse in the book to keep the violence and brutality against unarmed people going. The last time Abbas went to the UN to get partial recognition, it was heartening that the majority in the world, voted and supported the Palestinians. They sent the US and Israel a strong message – that they could not twist arms, threaten, and bribe, other nations to do their bidding. I hope I see Palestinians free and with full rights in my lifetime.
      Good luck to all, and may the good guys win.

    • Accentitude
      Accentitude on April 22, 2014, 8:40 am

      I’m with you. I’m Palestinian too. Unfortunately, Zionists are so warped that they interpret “return to our homeland” as “Kill all the Jews” and it doesn’t help that in the United States, heavy hitters on Capitol Hill and the Pro-Israel lobby are furiously working around the clock to make people really believe that.

      • James Canning
        James Canning on April 22, 2014, 7:55 pm

        Many of the liars who promote the false notion, are simply whores. Sadly.

  19. James Canning
    James Canning on April 21, 2014, 2:23 pm

    Bravo! Relentless lying about the supposed determination of the Palestinians to “kill” the Jews, all Jews, some Jews, etc etc etc is part of the programme to enable continuing growth of illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.

  20. American
    American on April 21, 2014, 3:43 pm

    Correct me if I am wrong but dont papers and editors usually have some standards they apply to what letters are publish worthy?
    I would say Paul liked it or agreed with it and so published it, period.
    Because its hard to believe that that was only letter submitted or all of those submitted said all Palestines want to kill all Jews.
    If they had published a letter saying All Jews wanted to kill all Palestines there would be screamings, accusations, lawsuits claiming …BLOOD LIBEL! , BLOOD LIBEL!
    This is what it is on Pauls part and thats all there is to it.

  21. Sumud
    Sumud on April 21, 2014, 10:19 pm

    Well this thread has turned out to be a fizzer.

    We have the Hamas charter (refuted by Zofia) and something a Syrian General said in 1967 and Nasser in 1965 – both irrelevant to the question:

    How many ‘Palestinian Arabs’ want to kill ‘all Jews?’

    We do have lots of dead Palestinians and a lot less dead Israelis: 562 vs 37 respectively over the last five years. Not so hard to interpret.

    This is the hasbarat’s moment to shine and they have let the team down.

    • Mikhael
      Mikhael on April 22, 2014, 8:41 pm

      We do have lots of dead Palestinians and a lot less dead Israelis: 562 vs 37 respectively over the last five years. Not so hard to interpret.

      And most (admittedly, not all, there have been many innocent civilian fatalities on the Palestinian side as well) of those dead Palestinians came to be dead through engaging in hostilities with Israelis and belonging to terror gangs, while most of the dead Israelis since the start of the 2nd Intifada in October 2000 have been civilians. Israelis need not feel remorse that fewer of our number (soldiers and civilians alike) have been killed in violent conflict than from those who are fighting against us. I’ve never heard of the British, who suffered tens of thousands of civilian war dead in WW2 from Blitzkriegs and V2 rockets, lamenting that they bear guilt for not suffering as many civilian casualties as the Germans did.

      While the loss of any innocent civilian life is certainly a tragedy, whether Israeli Jewish or Palestinian Arab, we Israelis do not feel guilty for being stronger than and defeating our enemies.

  22. Dutch
    Dutch on April 21, 2014, 10:44 pm

    @ James

    Great initiative, but no answers other than: ‘Come on!’. The opposite is true, and actually that amazes me time and again. How can the people of – say – Nabi Salih put up without turning into monsters? Thát’s what stands out for me. How about Ms. Rudoren taking this on?

    As for statistics, I found this one clarifying wrt the question who’s killing who:
    http://www.imemc.org/article/64308

    For those still in doubt, this is the most recent Human Rights Council report:
    http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14458&LangID=E

    • puppies
      puppies on April 21, 2014, 11:00 pm

      @Dutch – Precisely. In this connection, I was proposing two things:

      1. Describe the family, environment, schooling, education and other environment that made the letter writer Mr. Walter Schimmerling, the letter writer. Compare to those writing here, either Zionists or those who refuse to be so described. Somewhat like in the once popular game “Where is Waldo?”

      2. Instead of rushing to the scissors, indicate who, if not the Zionist entity and *only* the Zionist entity, is the one power in the area practicing daily genocide, described as acts falling squarely within the definition of genocide, as listed by Lemkin himself and described in the international conventions agains genocide etc. Compare this to an ill-advised “which Arabs want to kill Jews” theoretical game.

  23. wondering jew
    wondering jew on April 22, 2014, 1:02 am

    Ending the post with the “or not a single one at all” marks this post as propaganda. I agree that this letter does not belong in the Times and the entire discussion is besides the point. Extremist rhetoric is not what is holding back a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. Extremist rhetoric exists on both sides.

    But the inference that Islam or the Palestinians who preach Islam on Fridays are without this infamous/notorious Hadith seems to me false. I have not studied Islam sufficiently to know how important this Hadith is or if there are other interpretations. The use of “it does not exist” is the absolutism of a propagandist not the skepticism of a reporter.

    • Ecru
      Ecru on April 22, 2014, 5:35 am

      @ Yonah

      “Ending the post with the “or not a single one at all” marks this post as propaganda.”

      Again I have to ask : do Zionists have some serious allergy problem with the truth?

      HAD the piece ended with your statement as quoted then maybe you’d have a point but it actually ended very differently. It ended with:-

      ?

      A VERY significant piece of punctuation which you have deliberately ignored in order to twist the intention and thus give room for your attempt to deflect.

      “Extremist rhetoric is not what is holding back a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. Extremist rhetoric exists on both sides.”

      True; extremist rhetoric isn’t what’s holding back peace and it does indeed exist on both sides. It is however extremist behaviour on the part of the Israeli Jews (aided and abetted by Jewish communities in the Diaspora and loony Christian Zionists), the ones with all the power in this relationship, that’s not just holding back peace it’s actively trying to destroy any hope of peace.

    • James North
      James North on April 22, 2014, 8:48 am

      Yonah: Find me a single “Palestinian Arab” who wants to kill “all Jews.” Until you can, my final sentence — “or not a single one at all?” — still stands.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 22, 2014, 10:19 am

        James North- If you think that Hamas rhetoric does not include genocidal strands, and if you think the Hadith that says, “Rock give me your Jew so I can kill him” is not a genocidal Hadith, then go right ahead stand where you wish. If you wish to show this post to your teacher from journalism school as something you’re proud of, then stand by it also. Genocidal rhetoric of Palestinian imams quoting the Hadith referred to in the links I provided exists, but you can pretend that such rhetoric does not exist. didn’t you say that antisemitism doesn’t exist in america, isn’t that another pearl of truth from the lips of your typewriter. do i have to research your words for you too? When Hamas rhetoric accuses Jews of Protocols of elders of zion claws on the world, when they invoke freemasons and such. when rantisi makes comments like “yes, the germans killed the Jews, but the question is why did they kill the Jews”, to deny that genocidal rhetoric exists among Palestinians shows you have too much time on your hand and that accuracy is something you don’t have enough time for.
        But stand wherever you want. You have reporters credentials that you use for propaganda purposes.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on April 22, 2014, 10:37 am

        yonah, can you answer his challenge or not? He’s talking about real life people holding real life views. Not people using religious rhetoric (which contains “genocidal strands” on both the Jewish and Muslim sides), not people invoking The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or people saying things that you don’t like, but an actual, identifiable person who wants to kill all the Jews, without exception. Can you answer that challenge or not? If so, what is this person’s name? Where does he live?

      • seafoid
        seafoid on April 22, 2014, 10:59 am

        Yonah

        From the Gaza perspective Protocols-style accusations are not without foundation. Read Alison Weir’s book on the US influence on the foundation of Israel. What did Palestine have to do with the Shoah ?

        Israel uses Hamas rhetoric as an excuse to continue the pauperization of Gaza. Not particularly tikkun olam.
        Says more about Zionism than any speech in Congress or invocation of “Shalom.”

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 22, 2014, 11:14 am

        seafoid- This is symptomatic of the noncommunication of written communication in the comment section here. On a street corner we would share space and talk out the issues, but here every word gets stretched and it is not ideas that are discussed but toothpicks.
        Yes, I agree that Hamas rhetoric used by governments of Israel are a mechanism to avoid reaching an agreement with the indigenous nonJews of Palestine. (Not all indigenous are nonJews, but it is the indigenous nonJew who has a valid complaint against the Jewish self definers with the guns.)
        James North is right. The letter in the times was stupid and the defense offered for the letter was stupid.
        But James North was not being an accurate journalist, but an advocate. When advocacy and accuracy clash something gets busted. There is a genocidal strain in Palestinian Islamic nationalism. I don’t assess it as a serious strain or a serious reason to avoid negotiations. It is not reassuring on a personal level, but let’s put it this way: watch the movie, “the battle of algiers” and turn down the volume and all that’s necessary is to watch the screen and the genocidal words of a couple imams on a couple of Fridays in Palestine really are not the essence, but the details in a historic conflict.

        I don’t enjoy delving into Memri or whatever website compiles the words of haters of Jews and Israel and if I have to wave a white flag on this topic so as to avoid research of that sort, I’ll wave the white flag. I am too easily swayed by the input into my brain and I really don’t wish to input the words of hatred that do exist in the Palestinian Islamic world. If you want me to declare James North the saint of rational journalism I will do so, just to avoid going to Memri and spending my morning assaulting my soul with hatred.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on April 22, 2014, 11:28 am

        “If you want me to declare James North the saint of rational journalism I will do so, just to avoid going to Memri and spending my morning assaulting my soul with hatred.”

        LMAO!! So you got called on your bs, you know you can’t back it up, so you’re going to pretend that it’s all to protect your pure, pure heart from all that Arab hate… How cute.

      • puppies
        puppies on April 22, 2014, 12:06 pm

        @Clueless Friedman: “North was not being an accurate journalist, but an advocate”
        Is Mondoweiss supposed to be some Fox News pretending to “accurate journalism”? As far as I know, MW is the textbook example of what US English calls an advocacy site. But of course, nobody ever tells you anything!

        “If you want me to declare James North the saint of rational journalism I will do so, just to avoid going to Memri ”
        Cluelesser and cluelesser. Only a total moron or a Zionist rely on anything from Memri.

      • Walid
        Walid on April 22, 2014, 12:31 pm

        They’re going to have to specify that those wanting to kill them are the Muslims.

        Today, Israel decided to start sending out call-up papers to Palestinian Christians. This make a few less Palestinians out to kill Jews; in fact, the Palestinian Christians will be called upon to protect the Jews.

        http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Apr-22/254041-israel-to-send-call-up-papers-to-christian-arabs-army-radio.ashx#axzz2zdIhiiaD

  24. Accentitude
    Accentitude on April 22, 2014, 6:22 am

    I am a Palestinian American. I’ve been living in Palestine for 6 years now. I’ve worked with both Palestinians and Israelis through my work with several locally based non-profits. I’ve met all sorts of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank including people in the Hamas government, the PA, the PLO, Bedouins, people in refugee camps, basically everyone. Discussions around here always revert to politics. Its hard not to when literally every single hour of your life is affected by politics. Going to work is affected by politics, being able to buy a gallon of milk from the corner store is affected by politics, attending a cousin’s wedding is affected by politics, even how much you pay for a pair of Adidas or whether or not you can get the medicine you need from the local pharmacy. Anyway in my time here, I have never, not even once, met a single person who has professed their desire to “kill all the Jews.” The most radical statements I’ve heard were from people who were sick and tired of the occupation and believed in the one state solution as long as they could be equal and have all their rights.

  25. JeffB
    JeffB on April 22, 2014, 10:10 pm

    @james

    The Palestinians were already in Palestine, when the Arabs defeated the Byzantine Empire and took control.

    Certainly the question is whether they were there before that.

Leave a Reply