Viewpoint: The Centrality of Jerusalem

-

atef safadi wailing wall.jpg
This is a guest note by Yousef Munayyer, Executive Director of The Jerusalem Fund & The Palestine Center.
The above photo is credited with appreciation for its use to the talented photographer, Atef Safadi.

The Centrality of Jerusalem
If international law matters to any American president, it ought to be President Obama who has taught constitutional law.
Israel’s supporters are wrong to downplay the significance of illegal settlement activity as innocuous building in “Jewish neighborhoods” of Jerusalem. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s claim that “building in Jerusalem is the same as building in Tel Aviv,” according to international law and longstanding U.S. policy, building in East Jerusalem is the same as building in Jenin – or any other city in the occupied West Bank.
Despite all its remonstrating, Israel stands isolated from the entire international community over occupied East Jerusalem. Israel has no legitimate sovereignty on any inch of land beyond the Green Line, regardless of what they call it. As one European foreign minister recently stated: “I think I can say very clearly that Jerusalem is not Tel Aviv.” Legally speaking, this rebuke to Netanyahu’s bluster is correct, and the U.S. knows it.
Those who watch this conflict closely know that Israeli settlement expansion in Jerusalem has the potential to destroy the two-state solution and precipitate a third intifada. It is no minor matter. Nor was the timing of the announcements of 1600 new Jewish homes in the settlement of Ramat Shlomo during the visit of Vice President Biden, or of 20 more units for a site owned by an American funder of Netanyahu just hours before the prime minister was to meet with Obama.
Netanyahu rejected U.S. calls to halt settlement expansion and his Interior Minister, Eli Yishai — the same man who started the fracas when Biden visited — also seems determined to continue flouting the Obama administration.
Undeterred, unrepentant, and still in his job, Yishai declared more than two weeks after the initial incident: “I thank God I have been given the opportunity to be the minister who approves the construction of thousands of housing units in Jerusalem.”
And when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced the concern of the Obama administration, MK Danny Danon of Netanyahu’s Likud party said her “meddling in internal Israeli decisions regarding the development of our capital, Jerusalem, is uninvited and unhelpful.” American organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL then urged the Obama administration to hush while expressing no public dismay at Danon’s tongue-lashing of the American secretary of state.
Could you imagine what would happen today if the United States annexed Mexico down to Mexico City, claimed it as part of Texas, then began building US cities there and preventing Mexicans from entering?
Obviously, the rest of the world would not accept the annexation of land through conquest for the United States or any state — even Israel.
But Jerusalem is not only a flash point because of Israel’s ongoing colonization through settlement expansion; this transcends the territorial dimension. Jerusalem is a symbolic city dear to Muslims, Christians and Jews. And as the economic and cultural center of Palestinian life for centuries, it is the only city that could be the capital of a Palestinian state. Likewise, no viable Palestinian state could emerge without East Jerusalem as its capital.
That’s why other Israeli provocations in Jerusalem are equally damaging to the diplomatic process and stability in the region. The ongoing de-Arabization of Jerusalem which has accelerated in recent years, demands the immediate attention of all those interested in a just solution to this conflict. From eviction and demolition of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, to the revocation of residencies and a complex matrix of walls and checkpoints, Israeli policies are slowly sapping Jerusalem of its Palestinian population.
In the Arab and Muslim world, this process playing out daily on the television screens of onlookers is interpreted as nothing short of a colonialist enterprise.
While some Israeli spokespersons may claim that there is no need to fuss over building a few houses, the reality is that the Palestinians and others in the Middle East have been watching an ongoing and alarming trend in Jerusalem for decades. Major settlements like Har Homa, Gilo, Ramat Shlomo, Ma’ale Addumim and others, which were developed under the Israeli guise of building in Jerusalem “just like Tel Aviv,” have created insurmountable obstacles to sharing Jerusalem between both peoples. The policies of removing or forcing out Palestinians from Jerusalem reinforce the notion that Israel has no intention of returning the land it occupies.
Without Jerusalem on the table, Palestinians not only lack incentive to negotiate, they lack any incentive to maintain the two-state framework.
Jerusalem tumult has the potential to send shockwaves through the Middle East and the broader Muslim world where the United States has far more important interests than the troublemaking state of Israel.
— Yousef Munayyer

Comments

112 comments on “Viewpoint: The Centrality of Jerusalem

  1. nadine says:

    Sweetness, do you know that Israeli settlements use up only about 4% of area of the West Bank? Plus Olmert offered to rip up 80% of them. So how do settlements “preclude” a settlement? They may make it harder, but they don’t preclude anything. They are not nuclear waste sites.
    The Palestinians could have a state this minute on the whole West Bank, with adjustments/land swaps of 3% or 4% to make it 100%, and 100% of Gaza. That something so close to 100% of the land is regarded as radically insufficient, not even worth discussing, should give you a hint that land is not the really the sticking point it is claimed to be.
    It’s something else. Something that would lose support for the Palestinians if they said it in English. So they don’t say it.

    Reply

  2. Sweetness says:

    Nadine/Larry: Of course, my opinion on these matters counts
    for less than zero (obviously), but I’m not a big supporter of a
    binational state except in a best of all possible worlds scenario-
    – which doesn’t exist.
    So I support the two-state solution as the best of all possible
    solutions in THIS world.
    Nadine, as I’ve explained, regardless of what happened at Taba,
    Israel should keep a real two-state offer on the table and stay
    open to it without letting down its guard. Settlements that chew
    up additional land should be stopped because end up
    precluding a second state. Ultimately, this isn’t about the
    Palestinians, it’s about Israel and what’s good for Israel.
    Remaining a garrison state isn’t good, so she should try all
    possible routes to reducing that need that don’t jeopardize
    security. Of course, some risks need to be taken, however…

    Reply

  3. Carroll says:

    The Best Quote On AIPAC EVER!
    By M.J. Rosenberg – April 6, 2010, 5:40PM
    You never know where Jeff Goldberg will end up on a particular issue except that he will never deviate more than a few degrees from the AIPAC line. It is then no surprise that his piece today is called “AIPAC Is Good For The Jews.”
    Goldberg offers a quote from famed political scientist, Walter Russell Meade, a long time admirer of AIPAC, to make his case.
    These two paragraphs represent the most delightful argument for AIPAC I’ve ever seen! Why? Because this is the best a top political scientist can offer and it is meaningless nonsense. It makes Sarah Palin sound like Adlai Stevenson.
    This is where following the AIPAC line will lead you. Beware…..
    JJ Goldberg….”In the United States at least, lobbying for Zion turns out to be good for the Jews. The rise of AIPAC and other Jewish groups who make the case for stronger US support for Israel angers some international affairs specialists and others who think that on the whole the US-Israel relationship is bad for the United States. There definitely are groups of people who, while doing their level best to fight the temptation (so are they all honorable men), are so angry and so frightened by what they see as the Jewish juggernaut crushing dissent and imposing suicidal Middle Eastern policies on the stupidly passive American gentile population, sometimes cross that all-important line that separates the virtuously anti-Zionist from the vilely anti-Semitic. But out there where it really counts, in the great sea of American public opinion, Jewish support for Israel doesn’t work that way. In fact, from what I can see the (mistaken) view that Jews are more hawkish than most Americans on the subject of Israel probably works to reduce anti-Semitism in the United States.
    AIPAC, in other words, is good for the Jews, regardless of whether the positions it advocates are good for either Israel or the United States from a foreign policy perspective.”
    As my favorite President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt liked to say, “don’t you just love it!” I do.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Too bad Freud is dead, the zionist could use a good psychiatrist.LOL

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    Sweetness, the Economist just published an article on the state of affairs in “poor” “starving” Gaza, which may be of interest:
    AFTER four gruelling years under siege, the Gazans

    Reply

  5. larry birnbaum says:

    “For example, would a bi-national state be an “unwinding” if Jews still had a homeland and a right of return for Jews in trouble abroad? I don’t know.”
    I do know, Sweetness. Excuse me for uttering an empirical truth on this blog, but Arab countries are horrifically governed. I’m happy for the Palestinians to have a state of there own. But I wouldn’t want my cousins to have to live in it.
    Whether the horrific governance of Arab countries is somehow connected to the perpetuation of this conflict is left as an exercise for the reader.

    Reply

  6. nadine says:

    “The last thing has to do with size and power. When China crushes Tibet, the world and people on these comments shrug. Why? Because what is anyone going to do about it? China’s too big and powerful. Get them to float their currency? Fuggedaboutit. This is sort of the “realist” resurgence among progressives: They respect power. Watch Carroll on this point. Most recently: Don’t fuck with Turkey. They’ve got a big army and know how to use it. ” (Sweetness)
    This is a good point, Sweetness. Wouldn’t it imply that Israel should stop trying to appease world opinion? If they said, ‘hey, we will kick the butt of anybody who messes with us, and if you don’t like it, tough,’ wouldn’t they get less grief from the world? When this was their attitude back in the 70s and 80s, didn’t they in fact get less grief?

    Reply

  7. nadine says:

    “As to “unwinding itself,” you are, of course, correct. BUT…I think we have to get away from this either/or thinking. There is some evidence that this is what some people want, but I see no reason why Israel has to let that happen through negotiation or even force. She has to make an offer that she herself would accept were the positions reversed and keep it on the table and continue to probe for breakthroughs.” (Sweetness)
    Israel did already. Had the Palestinians wanted a country the way the Zionists did, they would have accepted Taba, the way the Zionists accepted the very faulty Partition, which didn’t even give them any of Jerusalem. Or at least Arafat would have made a serious counter-offer.
    That’s why the rejection of Taba without a counter was so devastating for the Israeli Peace Camp. Even dovish Israelis came to understand that the Palestinians didn’t want a state of their own nearly so much as they wanted to take revenge on Israel: put it in the dock, delegitimize it, destroy it down the road.
    “There will be disagreements on what “unwinding” means. For example, would a bi-national state be an “unwinding” if Jews still had a homeland and a right of return for Jews in trouble abroad?”
    Yes, it would be an unwinding. Look at the position of other minorities in the Mideast: Kurds, Copts, Christians, etc. Where do any of them have anything close to equality, let alone a binational working arrangement? ‘Binational’ may sound charming to Western ears, but in the Mideast it is understood as a stepping stone to driving the Jews out, which is why the Palestinians (and Qadaffi) favor it.
    Look at how the Christians of Bethlehem, who used to be 80% of the population, have been driven out in less than twenty years of PA rule. That’s the future scenario for the Jews in any binational state.

    Reply

  8. Sweetness says:

    JohnH: “Yes, I would agree that there is disproportionate rage
    directed at Israel. I believe there are several underlying reasons
    for this:
    SN: If it’s “disproportionate,” shouldn’t they get some balance
    into their reporting?
    JohnH: “1) In most countries horrific events are covered for a
    news for a news cycle or two. Israel eagerly makes sure that the
    slightest provocation on the part of its enemy du jour–
    Palestinians, Iranians, Turks, etc.–is in your face 24/7. To some
    degree the intensity of the reaction to Israel mirrors the intensity
    of the coverage. And it is very annoying to those of us who
    know that there are two sides to the story.”
    SN: You mean, “Stop bothering us with your problems?” If there
    IS two sides to every story, why aren’t you irritated with the
    other side AS WELL?
    JohnH: 2) Israel makes sure that the killing of its own is widely
    covered while denying any suffering by the other side or any
    responsibility it. This is not unusual. But what this unusual is the
    effort Israel makes to promote its own victimization and assure
    that it is routinely captured in the nightly news. Meanwhile it
    makes an equally intense effort at making sure the other side’s
    story gets buried, also very annoying to those of us who
    recognize that there are two sides to the story.
    SN: You mean, fire half your PR department? I don’t know which
    news you watch or read, but I’d say I see a whole lot of non-
    Israeli suffering shown on camera. In fact, I’d say there are many
    more pictures of Gaza than there are Sderot. Not to mention all
    the other Muslim lands where there is huge suffering not
    brought on by Israel.
    JohnH: 3) Israel chooses to actively promote itself as a “light
    unto humanity,” a modern society built on the Western model.
    Meanwhile it conducts a brutal occupation, kicking people out of
    their homes, stoning Palestinians picking their olives, etc. To
    make matters worse, Israel regularly conducts rampages
    throughout the neighborhood. I know of no other country that
    so regularly and so self-righteously sets off to kill a thousand
    foreigners, in Lebanon, in Gaza, in the West Bank, etc. Most
    countries that engage in routine brutality, with the possible
    exception of the United States, do it quietly. The gaping
    disconnect between image and reality, constantly shoved into
    our faces, is very annoying
    SN: You mean, if you’re going to do do it on the QT? The
    “gaping disconnect” can’t be more annoying than the one that
    applies to your own country, can it? And look on the bright
    side: At least there’s a disconnect. With other countries, the bar
    is set so low, nobody looks up from their Wheaties box when 5.4
    million Congolese die. Probably because it happens in darkest
    Africa to the darkest Africans.
    JohnH: 4) Israel consumes gobs of US aid and government
    attention in the pursuit of its ugly project. Many of us think that
    US government time and resources would be far better spent
    elsewhere.
    SN: Okay. BTW, that’s what Clean Break recommended (in part).
    JohnH: Yes, there are a lot of brutal regimes out there, many of
    them friends of the US. But most choose to be what they are and
    stay out of the news. Israel chooses to constantly promote itself
    as something it isn’t. Its PR machine has been amazing effective
    at convincing Americans of it.
    SN: John, you’re sounding more and more ridiculous. So, Israel
    could be as brutal as it wanted to be as long as it stayed out of
    the news and kept its head down?
    JohnH: Some of us think that both sides of the story need to be
    heard, and that Israel has gotten away with its phony baloney far
    too long.
    SN: Okay; I’m all for telling BOTH sides of the story. Phony
    baloney is not good. You must really be an old-fashioned blue
    blood or something. Your biggest complaint seems to be that
    those Jews make too much noise.

    Reply

  9. Sweetness says:

    Nadine: “Sweetness, if the United States was the size of Rhode
    Island, and the rest of the continent was still controlled by
    Indians who demanded that Rhode Island be cut in half to
    mitigate the US’ “founding sin”, the parallel would be much
    closer.”
    Try “were”–the subjunctive.
    Normally, supporters of Israel LIKE to draw this comparison.
    I do think the comparison has merit even though the scale is all
    off and what the early and not-so-early Americans did was
    much worse than what Israelis did. Christ, even Carroll and her
    family joined in on the “fun.”
    There was no US and no Israel before the founders pushed aside
    the people who were living there and had been living there for a
    long time. Not EVERY SINGLE person had been living there
    forever, but most of them had been.
    By “cut in half” do you mean that Israel now has a right to the
    WB and Gaza? If so, then she needs to annex the land and make
    all the Palestinians full citizens–just so that, when we go there,
    we don’t think we’ve arrived in the North Carolina of the 1950s.

    Reply

  10. Sweetness says:

    Sweetness,
    I appreciate your even temperament in this place.
    SN: Not a problem, Larry. I bear no ill-will to anyone, not even Carroll.
    LB: Regarding JohnH’s point, I am not commenting on the historical wisdom of Zionism (although I am a Zionist). But the whole point I’m trying to make is that you can’t keep trying to turn back history if you want peace. Complaining that someone previously acted analogously completely misses the point.
    SN: I’m not a Zionist; nor am I an anti-Zionist. It seems to me, looking back, that Zionism was a “reasonable” response to the situation Jews found themselves in. It was not the ONLY reasonable response, and may not have been the best (as measured against some standards), but it wasn’t crazy. Moreover, the way things played out, it turned out to be more prescient than a number of the other options.
    As to “turning back history,” I agree. That said, you can and should try to address past wrongs to the degree you can. World sympathy for the creation of the State fell into that category, as did German reparations paid to Israel and Holocaust survivors. But yes, the main focus needs to be on the present and future. That’s why I say the present is intolerable and bodes ill for the future. Is that a “sure thing”? No. But it’s what I think.
    LB: I understand the basis of your comparison to the founding of the United States. I think it’s invidious and utterly disproportional to compare what the Jews did to the Palestinians to either the slavery or, G-d forbid, the genocide perpetrated by our European ancestors here. Palestinians as a people, and as individual people, continue both physically and cultureally. This is not to say that they suffered no wrong. Nor do I believe that Israel is unprepared to accept that and to offer redress: I believe it is. What it won’t do is unwind itself to do so.
    SN: I agree with your comment about proportionality. The US did and does much worse than Israel and without the help of The Lobby. But two points: 1) There is no gainsaying that the Palestinians were done a horrific wrong, a wrong that continues to bleed today, and did very little, if anything, to deserve it.
    Even if you allow all the usual arguments (some of which I accept), you can’t get away from the fact that they were living on the land for many centuries when along came the Zionists. I happen to believe it was IN SOME WAYS two “rights” or “necessities” colliding. That said, if you put yourself in the place of the fela, minding his own business and tilling his land, who is all of a sudden and through no action of his own pushed aside and eventually tangled up in all kinds of constrictions…it isn’t hard to empathize and want redress for him. This is what Hillel we, as Jews, are commanded to do, and I think it’s right. It’s the most basic (important?) aspect of being a Jew.
    2) As to “unwinding itself,” you are, of course, correct. BUT…I think we have to get away from this either/or thinking. There is some evidence that this is what some people want, but I see no reason why Israel has to let that happen through negotiation or even force. She has to make an offer that she herself would accept were the positions reversed and keep it on the table and continue to probe for breakthroughs. AND remain tough on any attempt to “unwind” her. There will be disagreements on what “unwinding” means. For example, would a bi-national state be an “unwinding” if Jews still had a homeland and a right of return for Jews in trouble abroad? I don’t know. These questions will come and have to be answered. But I do think Israel has the chance to become something even greater–a true light unto the nations–but will have to give up its garrison-state mentality to achieve it.
    There are risks involved, and I wouldn’t ask her to let her guard down. In fact, since I’m not Israeli, I don’t have a single syllable of say about it. These are just my opinions.
    LB: In a more general vein, I do think that your point here gets at the core of what I view as the disproportionate rage aimed at Israel, given all the horrific things that happen in the world. There is a lot of guilt in the West about our sins of colonialism and even genocide over the past centuries. America isn’t going to actually compensate the American Indians, African-Americans, or for that matter the Mexicans, Filipinos, etc., who have suffered from our actions. Britain isn’t going to compensate the Indians and Pakistanis, or the Africans. France isn’t going to compensate the Algerians. Maybe we can get the Israelis to make symbolic compensation on our behalf? I won’t go into the larger historical, cultural, emotional meanings here. Suffice it to say, this isn’t a role that Israel is willing to play.
    SN: Well put. Lot to say here. Where to start? Part of it is, “the world” feels it DID compensate the Jews–if compensation can be used here–with the State of Israel and the reparations paid to it. Second, “the world” feels slightly horrified that its partial creation has turned out to be such a problem for so many people in the region. I’m not judging the right or wrong of this judgment, just putting it out on the table because I think it accurately reflects what some of “the world” thinks. Third, for much of Israel’s history, “the world” sided with Israel in its struggles with its neighbors, but now is beginning to see that the picture is a bit more complex than they originally thought. Nonetheless, “the world” mostly still supports Israel–after all, it’s a living, breathing state and a democracy.
    I agree with your main point about enhanced rage, and I do think a double standard exists in certain ways. So here’s my pet theory. I think there’s a kind of “orientalism” or “magic Negro” attitude toward Jews, an attitude that cuts at least two ways and probably more. OTOH, we’re accused of being the devil (short-hand for a lot of stuff); on the other hand, we’re supposed to be God (short-hand for a lot of stuff).
    Put more prosaically, Jews are a repository for a lot of the world’s hope for a better world. A Jewish state is SUPPOSED to be better than your garden-variety state and so, when it isn’t, the disappointment is much greater. Especially when so much hope, effort, and money have been invested in it. The US suffers a bit of the same problem. People think the US should be a lot better than it often is. It is a beacon of hope to much of the world’s ordinary people, so when it does really bad things, the disappointment is that much greater. No one is disappointed, or even surprised, when Russia acts like a scalawag. Or China. Or Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.
    (Sometimes you’ll see this phenomenon in small and largely benign ways. For example, Dan Kervick will sometimes say in exasperation: “Where are all those internationalist, lefty Jews who worked so hard for social justice?!” Why isn’t he asking for all those Niebuhr or Bonhoeffer acolytes? Where are the Catholic Workers when you need ’em? How’s about them Latinos? And while I’m at it, why don’t gentiles contribute their fair share to the Democratic party and progressive causes?)
    The last thing has to do with size and power. When China crushes Tibet, the world and people on these comments shrug. Why? Because what is anyone going to do about it? China’s too big and powerful. Get them to float their currency? Fuggedaboutit. This is sort of the “realist” resurgence among progressives: They respect power. Watch Carroll on this point. Most recently: Don’t fuck with Turkey. They’ve got a big army and know how to use it.
    But Israel is a teeny tiny country and it at least appears to be wholly dependent on US largesse. And yet Israel seems happy to do what it pleases, even when its benefactor disagrees, even when it causes problems for its benefactor. This enrages some people. Really pisses them off. If Israel were large and powerful, they’d shrug. In all of this, there’s nothing to do with the right or wrong of any action; it’s merely a function of size and power. And Israel and the Jewish people are destined, I fear, always to be small.
    A while back, someone quoted Weiss recalling an incident from the Kennedy administration. Apparently some big Jewish macher came to Kennedy with a fat check, but demanded a “say” over the US ME policy “in exchange.” Kennedy, we’re told, was incensed at the balls this contributor showed. This was quoted as evidence of the power of The Lobby, even back then.
    I had one question and one thought: 1) Why didn’t Kennedy refuse the check? That SHOULD have been easy. And 2) Kennedy was ticked off because this Jew had the gall to try to use his money to buy political influence-:) Didn’t that slimy little Jew bastard know you can’t do that to a Mick, at least not one named Kennedy who’s a helluva lot richer and tougher than that slimy Jew bastard?
    LB: Which refusal evokes its own anger.
    SN: Yes.

    Reply

  11. ... says:

    interesting tag team………

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But the whole point I’m trying to make is that you can’t keep trying to turn back history if you want peace. Complaining that someone previously acted analogously completely misses the point”
    But of course you and your tribe of self proffessed eternal victims can milk the holocaust for another coupla centuries, eh?

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    Sweetness, if the United States was the size of Rhode Island, and the rest of the continent was still controlled by Indians who demanded that Rhode Island be cut in half to mitigate the US’ “founding sin”, the parallel would be much closer.

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    “Israel eagerly makes sure that the slightest provocation on the part of its enemy du jour–Palestinians, Iranians, Turks, etc.–is in your face 24/7.” (JohnH)
    What, Israel controls the world’s press? Israel controls the incessant coverage of the I/P conflict all over the Muslim world, Europe, America? Israel makes sure that the ink-to-casualty ratio is at least 100 times greater than any other conflict on earth?
    Geeze, if Israel really controls the world’s press, you’d think they could get themselves better coverage.
    This is Protocols of the Elders of Zion type fantasy.

    Reply

  15. ... says:

    zionists talking to zionists… now we are really getting somewhere………zionist # 1, likes the even temperament of zionist #2….great! there is nothing even about zionism but if it can be served up in a polite way, i suppose that makes it more likable to some…

    Reply

  16. JohnH says:

    Yes, I would agree that there is disproportionate rage directed at Israel. I believe there are several underlying reasons for this:
    1) In most countries horrific events are covered for a news for a news cycle or two. Israel eagerly makes sure that the slightest provocation on the part of its enemy du jour–Palestinians, Iranians, Turks, etc.–is in your face 24/7. To some degree the intensity of the reaction to Israel mirrors the intensity of the coverage. And it is very annoying to those of us who know that there are two sides to the story.
    2) Israel makes sure that the killing of its own is widely covered while denying any suffering by the other side or any responsibility it. This is not unusual. But what this unusual is the effort Israel makes to promote its own victimization and assure that it is routinely captured in the nightly news. Meanwhile it makes an equally intense effort at making sure the other side’s story gets buried, also very annoying to those of us who recognize that there are two sides to the story.
    3) Israel chooses to actively promote itself as a “light unto humanity,” a modern society built on the Western model. Meanwhile it conducts a brutal occupation, kicking people out of their homes, stoning Palestinians picking their olives, etc. To make matters worse, Israel regularly conducts rampages throughout the neighborhood. I know of no other country that so regularly and so self-righteously sets off to kill a thousand foreigners, in Lebanon, in Gaza, in the West Bank, etc. Most countries that engage in routine brutality, with the possible exception of the United States, do it quietly. The gaping disconnect between image and reality, constantly shoved into our faces, is very annoying
    4) Israel consumes gobs of US aid and government attention in the pursuit of its ugly project. Many of us think that US government time and resources would be far better spent elsewhere.
    Yes, there are a lot of brutal regimes out there, many of them friends of the US. But most choose to be what they are and stay out of the news. Israel chooses to constantly promote itself as something it isn’t. Its PR machine has been amazing effective at convincing Americans of it.
    Some of us think that both sides of the story need to be heard, and that Israel has gotten away with its phony baloney far too long.

    Reply

  17. larry birnbaum says:

    Sweetness,
    I appreciate your even temperament in this place.
    Regarding JohnH’s point, I am not commenting on the historical wisdom of Zionism (although I am a Zionist). But the whole point I’m trying to make is that you can’t keep trying to turn back history if you want peace. Complaining that someone previously acted analogously completely misses the point.
    I understand the basis of your comparison to the founding of the United States. I think it’s invidious and utterly disproportional to compare what the Jews did to the Palestinians to either the slavery or, G-d forbid, the genocide perpetrated by our European ancestors here. Palestinians as a people, and as individual people, continue both physically and cultureally. This is not to say that they suffered no wrong. Nor do I believe that Israel is unprepared to accept that and to offer redress: I believe it is. What it won’t do is unwind itself to do so.
    In a more general vein, I do think that your point here gets at the core of what I view as the disproportionate rage aimed at Israel, given all the horrific things that happen in the world. There is a lot of guilt in the West about our sins of colonialism and even genocide over the past centuries. America isn’t going to actually compensate the American Indians, African-Americans, or for that matter the Mexicans, Filipinos, etc., who have suffered from our actions. Britain isn’t going to compensate the Indians and Pakistanis, or the Africans. France isn’t going to compensate the Algerians. Maybe we can get the Israelis to make symbolic compensation on our behalf? I won’t go into the larger historical, cultural, emotional meanings here. Suffice it to say, this isn’t a role that Israel is willing to play.
    Which refusal evokes its own anger.

    Reply

  18. ... says:

    self confrontation and self reflection is missing.. showing a tough hard side and nothing else leads many to believe that is all israel is………one wonders if israel is capable as they seem to have handed everything over to a far right group of fanatics that run things politically….

    Reply

  19. Sweetness says:

    Birnbaum writes: “Again, tremendous rehashing of who is to be “blamed” for the current situation, which gets us exactly nowhere. So, to repeat, if there is to be peace in the Middle East, then revanchist claims will, inevitably, have to be given up, as they have been in Europe, Asia, and American for the sake of peace. Otherwise there will be no peace.”
    Larry, I agree with you in the main, though JohnH does make an interesting rejoinder about 2,000 year revanchism, not entirely apposite, but still close enough. But I think the point lies elsewhere…
    I think the parallel is closer to the US’s history of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation. Not to mention the genocide of the Native American Indians.
    IOW, “original sin” or founding sin. The US had to come to terms with its past and attempt to make amends for it or address it or come to terms with it. Morris said that founding a country means breaking some eggs, in this case, Arab eggs. He doesn’t argue that Israel shouldn’t have been founded (though some will), but she does need to look in the mirror and take appropriate action. I think that’s the main point.
    That’s a very Jewish idea and Israel is the Jewish state, yes?
    I, like a number of people, are somewhat skeptical that such a reckoning would lead to peace between Jews and Arabs, Israel and the Arab and Muslim states. And Israel doesn’t have to leave itself bare-ass naked in the process. But she does have to address her past, not even so much for the Palestinians, but for herself, to get on with the process of becoming what she can become and what many Zionists originally envisioned for her–or, in less lofty terms, to give all the people, Israelis and Arabs alike, the chance for good, productive and fulfilling lives.
    Doing so will take the greatest kind of courage. Dangers do lurk. There are risks. MLK was killed. So was Rabin. So was Sadat. But I think, at this point, as far as I can see, this sort of self-confrontation is the way forward for Israel. And, more selfishly, it’s the surest way to keep the US and the West solidly in her corner.

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Oh, gee, ten IDF soldiers gangbanging a fourteen year old is A-OK in Nadines’s twisted little fucked up version of reality, particularly when the little vixen claims to be the ripe old age of seventeen and has incited the gangbang. Heck, they oughta give these pieces of shit a medal, eh Nadine?
    The point, Nadine, is that the IDF isn’t the saintly crew of angelic little champions of justice you would have us believe they are. They needn’t rape a Palestinian prisoner to be accused of crimes, as there is plenty of evidence of daily attrocities comnmitted by these jackboots.
    Of course the myriad of hollywood productions depicting Muslims as swarthy heathens hellbent on incinerating Gotham don’t warrant your chagrin.
    How dare these nasty Turks for dramatizing a fictional rape when they could make the same point by merely producing a documentary chronicling the very real daily attrocities committed by the IDF.

    Reply

  21. nadine says:

    Anyone not motivated by gibbering hatred might inquire what charges of statutory rape following consensual sex between IDF soldiers and an Israeli girl have to do with Turkish TV’s false and inflammatory charges of Palestinian prisoners being raped by IDF jailers.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    10 IDF soldiers from the Negev air force base of Navatim were incarcerated on Thursday afternoon for their part in the rape of a 14-year-old girl.
    The soldiers were sentenced to 21-42 months military incarceration for “shameful behavior.”
    Nine of those who were sentenced admitted to having sexual intercourse with the girl. One soldier refused to admit his guilt; however, his colleagues incriminated him.
    snip
    A senior IDF officer said that the reason the perpetrators were not indicted in a civil court was that the girl and her family had refused to cooperate, saying they would not testify in a civil trial.
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=115791363109
    Next week, another 22 soldiers will face a disciplinary hearing on the same charge, while a sergeant major and a lieutenant will be tried for failing to report that the soldiers were sleeping with the girl, even though they knew about it.
    The base commander decided to hold the disciplinary hearings after a Military Police investigation found insufficient evidence for criminal indictments. Although the girl was below the age of consent – meaning that all the soldiers were guilty of statutory rape – she told investigators that she had lied to the soldiers, telling them that she was 17, and investigators found no evidence that the soldiers knew that she was in fact underage. She also said that the sex was consensual, and investigators found no evidence to contradict this. Moreover, the girl’s mother and stepfather said that they would not allow her to testify in court to spare her further trauma.
    The girl was a school dropout, and had therefore been roaming the base for months with little to do when these incidents occurred.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/762956.html

    Reply

  23. nadine says:

    Interesting story from the Jpost: Turkish TV shows a vile anti-Israel program which depicts IDF troops raping a female prisoner who is killed by her family upon release. This sparks an indignant denial — by Palestinian female prisoners! They’ll defend Israel to defend themselves! It also shows you where Turkey is going — straight into alliance with Syria and Iran.
    Anti-Israel TV show angers Palestinians
    By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
    06/04/2010 03:45
    Turkish drama depicts IDF soldiers as cold-blooded murderers and rapists.
    Even the Palestinians are opposed to an anti-Israel Turkish television series that is being aired these days on two popular Arab satellite networks.
    The 13-episode Separation: Palestinian in Love and in War (Cry of Stones) is about a Palestinian family that leaves for a vacation to Jordan, only to return to a home that had been demolished by the IDF.
    The drama, which was first broadcast on Turkey

    Reply

  24. JohnH says:

    larry birnbaum speaks like a true victor–revanchist claims must be given up by the loser. Or does he include abandonment of 2000 year old revanchist claims by settlers seeking reconquest of all of Greater Israel?
    I agree that both sides should abandon revanchist claims on both sides and seek a just solution for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Both sides deserve an equal share of the pie…and this will not happen as long as one side is permitted to continue ethnic cleansing at its pleasure.

    Reply

  25. larry birnbaum says:

    Again, tremendous rehashing of who is to be “blamed” for the current situation, which gets us exactly nowhere. So, to repeat, if there is to be peace in the Middle East, then revanchist claims will, inevitably, have to be given up, as they have been in Europe, Asia, and American for the sake of peace.
    Otherwise there will be no peace.

    Reply

  26. JohnH says:

    Nadine is just trying to weasel out of the moral responsibility that Israel bears for ethnic cleansing that continues to this day…
    Her arguments are just evasions and distractions for morally reprehensible acts that Israel intentionally commits to this day.
    Bottom line: if Nadine and her ilk feel that it’s acceptable for Israel to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, why would they expect anyone to care if Israelis are on the receiving end? Because they’re a “chosen people?” Yeah, right!

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “You never complain about anybody but Israel, so it’s easy to get the impression that you don’t care about the other cases”
    Here you see the bigoted witch accusing JohnH of her own downfalling. Have you EVER seen this lying bigoted sack of shit hasbarist condemn or criticize one single modern Israeli practice, action, or crime? Not one time, (despite the prolific nature of her spew), has Nadine EVER admitted to Israeli wrongdoing, no matter how blatant, egregious, or undeniable the wrongdoing.
    What has JohnH gotten for his back and forth engagement with this shrew? The truth???
    This is an exercise in futility. There is no argument one can offer that doesn’t have a predetermined and scripted response that will be offered by this unscrupulous and disingenuous ziobot.

    Reply

  28. nadine says:

    “Nadine–BS! I am not defending a highly hypothetical situation where Arabs might possibly have perpetrated a final solution. (As if the West would have allowed such a thing to happen!)”
    What do you mean “as if”? The West allowed the Holocaust to happen, didn’t they? Hitler killed 11 million people in the Holocaust, Jews and non-Jews. What would 600,000 more Jews of Palestine have been? A blip in the totals, that’s what.
    If The British hadn’t stopped the Germans in North Africa, Hitler would have conquered the oil fields of the Mideast, which he very much needed for the German war effort, and would have given Palestine to the Mufti to implement the Final Solution there. Did I mention that the Mufti got a tour of Auschwitz while it was still in operation to get tips on how to operate a death camp?
    “My only point is that I am opposed to ethnic cleansing whether perpetrated by Arab, Zionist, German or anyone else.”
    You never complain about anybody but Israel, so it’s easy to get the impression that you don’t care about the other cases. Besides, Israel didn’t even have a program of ethnic cleansing. They had a program of trying to stay alive with neighbors who first tried to kill them, then would never negotiate a border or sign a peace treaty. I never hear you say a word against the Arab effort to exterminate Israel at birth in 1948, or their deliberate perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem. So what can I conclude, but that you wish they had won?

    Reply

  29. JohnH says:

    Nadine–BS! I am not defending a highly hypothetical situation where Arabs might possibly have perpetrated a final solution. (As if the West would have allowed such a thing to happen!) My only point is that I am opposed to ethnic cleansing whether perpetrated by Arab, Zionist, German or anyone else.
    Why do you constantly distort my point? And given what happened to Jews during WWII, how can you possibly excuse, justify and defend ethnic cleansing?
    Oh, I know, it’s bad if Germans do it, but it’s OK if Zionists do it. Wow! There’s a strong moral position for you!

    Reply

  30. nadine says:

    JohnH, you seem to be defending the ‘solution’ of the Arabs winning, which would have been a final solution indeed, just like it was for the Jews of Poland. Let’s talk about your moral depravity in rooting for genocide, shall we, now that you can no longer hide behind your total ignorance of WWII?

    Reply

  31. JohnH says:

    Pathetic how Nadine is still trying to justify the morally indefensible–ethnic cleansing.
    This clearly demonstrates the moral depravity of her ilk.

    Reply

  32. nadine says:

    The Yishuv didn’t ethnically clear Arabs from Palestine; on the contrary, the Arab population of Palestine rose much faster from 1920 to 1948 than the Arab population of Syria or Transjordan. It rose particularly fast near Jewish centers of population. Yoffa and Haifa rose fivefold in ARAB population.
    The “ethnic cleansing” was the result of the 1948 war, when five Arab armies invaded Palestine in order to drive the Jews into the sea, and the mass panic and exodus of refugees the war sparked.
    No war, no refugees.

    Reply

  33. nadine says:

    JohnH, the only reason the Jews of the Yishuv in Palestine didn’t wind up in concentration camps and crematoria like the Jews of Poland is that Germany failed to conquer Palestine. The British stopped Rommel at el Alamein, remember?
    Hitler had personally promised the Mufti that the Mufti would have the rule of conquered Palestine and personal charge of implementing the Final Solution there.

    Reply

  34. nadine says:

    JohnH, Europe did arrange itself like India/Pakistan after WWII, about which you clearly know very little. Three million Germans were killed or driven out of their former holdings in Konigsburg (now Kaliningrad), Danzig (now Gdansk) or the Sudetenland (now part of the Czech Republic). The borders of Poland moved 200 miles to the west, taking what had been former German territory and ceding former Polish territory to the USSR.
    I/P is very small potatoes compared to Europe or India/Pak. Those millions of refugees got resettled and went on with their lives. Only the Pals (those who didn’t make it into Jordan) got stuck in refugee camps from generation unto generation. Thanks to the UN and their “brother” Arabs.

    Reply

  35. ... says:

    john h question “Why didn’t Europe rearrange itself like India/Pakistan, instead of condoning ethnic cleansing in the Middle East?” i think it was the zionist folks in britian who successfully got what they wanted through the political process….this is much like what we see today in the halls of american political power where what israel wants is considered a top priority…the zionists continue to have undue influence politically…

    Reply

  36. JohnH says:

    Nadine also notes that Palestinians were disorganized, while Zionists were organized, so Zionists had “their backs to the sea.” This is one of the more nonsensical statements I have ever read.
    Also, WWII saw 50 million dead, almost none in Palestine. Yet Europe and America chose to let Israel continue the horrors of WWI by letting them ethnically cleanse Palestinians in the Middle East inside of creating a separate Jewish entity in depopulated Central Europe. Why didn’t Europe rearrange itself like India/Pakistan, instead of condoning ethnic cleansing in the Middle East?

    Reply

  37. JohnH says:

    Nadine, Rabin’s remarks about ethnic cleansing was a direct quote from the 1996 edition of his autobiography. The passage had been censored from previous editions. I did not take the quote from a Palestinian site but from the book itself, which I took out of the library and then copied to preserve the key passage.
    Now you are down to the point of arguing lamely that, “OK, well, a few Palestinians may have been cleansed, but that was all right, since they had other places to go.” Facts are that Palestinians had nowhere else to go but refugee camps in Gaza, Jordan and Lebanon, where they are still being warehoused.
    Second, no one has any idea how many were intentionally cleansed vs. those who fled the fighting. These facts have been intentionally obscured by Israeli government propaganda, as Rabin notes, undertaken to assuage the consciences of humane Israelis who were forced to perpetrate inhumane acts.
    And finally, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing, whether perpetrated by Zionists or by Ben Gurion. Making lebensraum and creating opportunities for subsequent waves of Jewish immigration from around the world does not make the actions any less abhorrent.
    Sad that so many Israel firsters are in “ethnic cleansing denial.” Why are these deniers treated any differently from people who deny ethnic cleansing in Germany in the 1930’s?

    Reply

  38. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “There’s no point in engaging in discussion with PissedOff”American”. Pissed off hardly begins to describe his mental state. He hates Israel with a passion”
    Yes, Israel’s actions have become quite loathsome. And one must certainly wonder at the moral proclivities of its staunch defenders.
    A very telling aspect of modern Israeli policy is its obsession with controlling the narrative, rather than any actual change in policy in regards to its inhumane and illegal activities. Such a dynamic telegraphs the Israeli leader’s apparent mindset that it’s crimes, human rights abuses, land thefts, and atrocities are indeed egregious and immoral, requiring an active propaganda campaign designed to mask the true nature and intent of its policies.
    Do I hate “Israel”? Thats assinine, Birnbaum, and typical of the slobber you and this hasbarist witch and her ilk pollute the narrative with. Do I abhor the excuses, rationales, and justifications that small minded bigots like yourself and a good portion of Israel’s leaders and citizenry use to excuse behaviours and abuses that are blatantly inhumane and obscenely racist?? Of course. I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I felt any compassion, alliance, or understanding for scum like yourself or your racist murderous brethren who believe Israel has a “right”, or God’s sanction, to commit the atrocities it engages in daily. And attrocities they are. Obscene, blatant, undeniable; attrocities. And you should probably be more concerned with an introspective analysis of your own willingness to defend them than with trying to assess my own feelings or sentiments towards “Israel”.

    Reply

  39. A. Menaidy says:

    I salute the many Jewish (and Israeli) people of conscious around the world who abhor and condemn Israeli atrocities and the Zionist plans and policies of dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their land.
    http://links.org.au/node/851/10232
    Of course the hasbara brigade would want others to believe there are only Islamists and anti semites who would avow such views and positions. Of course they know, but hope that the ignorant and uninformed remain that way.

    Reply

  40. nadine says:

    Larry, DonS and other multi-culturalists need to project their own values onto the Arabs. Otherwise they cannot avoid the self-contradiction at the heart of multi-culturalism: that if different people really do have different values, at the end of the day you must sometimes make a choice between your values and theirs, or jettison your own values.
    This is a choice they refuse to face. It’s verboten to criticize “the other”. So instead we have the Great Pretense: either that Hamas et. al. have the same values as lefty Westerners, or if they don’t, it’s not their fault because of the power imbalance between them and the Israelis.
    And don’t bother asking, so what’s the excuse for Saudi Arabia? or any other bunch of powerful theocratic authoritarians you care to name. They won’t answer you.

    Reply

  41. nadine says:

    JohnH, I tried to find this supposed Rabin “Drive them out” quote of yours. I came up with an pro-Palestinian site that said it came from a “leaked, censored” version of his auto-biography.
    Figures.
    Listen, can’t you find some real work to quote, Benny Morris or somebody? It’s not like this topic hasn’t been argued over by actual historians.
    I’m not saying every Arab refugee left without being driven out. Those on the road to Jerusalem, which saw the heaviest fighting as the Israelis fought to lift the siege, did get driven out either directly, or just by the fighting. But most left before the fighting or in the panic and took hold of the population when the Arab victory failed to materialize. Go look at British sources of the time, who as a whole were not pro-Zionist, and were rather puzzled by the wholesale Palestinian flight. Why don’t you fight? they kept asking the Arabs.
    What you have to realize is that unlike the Zionists, the Arabs of Palestine were not organized, and they had other places to go. The Zionists otoh were organized, and had their backs to the sea.
    These comments about “the Israelis couldn’t have gotten away with more ethnic cleansing” are quite amusing. This was 1948, three years after Auschwitz ceased production.
    The Israelis were under no illusion that if they lost, they would have been slaughtered wholesale with no help to be expected; and they could have turned the tables on the Arabs with nobody minding very much. Three years after WWII with its 50 million dead, at a time when 14 million people were being displaced in India/Pakistan? It would have been small potatoes indeed to have driven every Arab out, and the international community would have understood the reasons. But that’s just not how Ben Gurion operated.

    Reply

  42. ... says:

    birnbaum quote “but i do think you are projecting your values onto them”………… is that sorta like how american jews project their values onto israeli jews not realizing the projections aren’t valid? what else explains the continued support for the bloody policies of israel? projections can happen a number of different ways… more american jews need to read the views of nadine here to realize just how whacked out many of the jewish nutjobs in israel are and how little they actually share with them…. nadine is doing everyone here a favour with her zionist zeal… i hope she continues to reveal the insanity that drives the israel people, as their will definitely be an end to it….

    Reply

  43. larry birnbaum says:

    DonS, I appreciate your coherence.
    However, I think you’re just wrong about where the Palestinians are, to the extent that a people can be anywhere collectively. I don’t think they’re irrational or into self-flagellation. But I do think that you are projecting your values onto them.

    Reply

  44. larry birnbaum says:

    There’s no point in engaging in discussion with PissedOff”American”. Pissed off hardly begins to describe his mental state. He hates Israel with a passion.
    Well, haters have to hate someone.

    Reply

  45. Neo Controll says:

    Sham and A Menaidy are new found heroes in truth.
    Kotz, you slimy devil, crawl back under your rock.
    — NCHQ

    Reply

  46. kotsabasis says:

    Nadine, who dares to correct the

    Reply

  47. JohnH says:

    I engage with this hasbara to provide information and talking points to others who might have to deal with the Nadine’s of the world…
    One of the problems of the last 60 years is that too few people have countered the hasbara and it became conventional wisdom.
    As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Again, I ask, why the hell do you all continue to engage someone you KNOW is a liar and a bigot? Do you really think you will somehow win the witch over to being honest, or admit to Israeli wrongdoing??? Ain’t gonna happen. Thats not why the compulsive and fanatical liar salts this blog with her scripted horseshit. Don’t you think its about time to stop feeding her???

    Reply

  49. JohnH says:

    Pure propaganda, and Nadine knows it: “Those Arabs who stayed in Israel did not get killed and were allowed to stay. Today they and their descendants are Israeli citizens.”
    All you have to do is read Ithak Rabin’s auto-biography (1996 edition), where he clearly discusses ethnic cleansing:
    “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question: ‘What is to be done with the population?’ B.G. waved his hand in a gesture which said, ‘Drive them out!'”
    He goes on “Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. Soldiers of the Yiftach Brigade included youth-movement graduates, who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humanness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to…Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action to remove the bitterness.”
    Obviously, the propaganda continues unabated as well as a dearth of international brotherhood and humanness on the part of those who willingly propagate the hasbara.
    Those Palestinians left inside Israel have become useful to Israeli propaganda, because people like Nadine can falsely claim that “there was no ethnic cleansing because the cleansing was not complete.” By this logic, Hitler didn’t engage in ethnic cleansing either, because he wasn’t 100% effective. I find this kind of logic to be morally abhorrent.

    Reply

  50. nadine says:

    While you tote up the numbers who “left of their own accord” you can add in most of the Arabs of Palestine. The well-to-do left for Cairo or Beirut in 1947. Those who were near the Jewish population centers evacuated before the fighting began, heeding the threats of the Arab High Command to treat them as renegades if they were caught sitting next to the Jews by the invading Arab forces. For example, 70,000 Arabs of Haifa borrowed trucks from the Brits and evacuated in April 1948, disregarding Ben Gurion’s promises of safety. That’s over 10% of the refugee total right there.
    Many simply panicked when the Arab victory promised by the radio didn’t materialize and the radio began spreading tales of Deir Yassin instead. (Several Arab leaders admitted after the war that their efforts to firm up resistance by spreading stories of Jewish atrocities had backfired terribly and fomented panic instead.)
    Then the Arabs left before the Jews could do to them what they would have done to the Jews. Mahmoud Abbas in a recent interview, explained how his family left Safed. Notice how they didn’t see a single Israeli soldier before they left:
    “”Until the nakba” (calamity in Arabic – the loaded synonym for Israeli independence), he recounted, his family “was well-off in Safed.” When Abbas was 13, “we left on foot at night to the Jordan River… Eventually we settled in Damascus… My father had money, and he spent his money methodically. After a year, when the money ran out, we began to work.
    “People were motivated to run away… They feared retribution from Zionist terrorist organizations – particularly from the Safed ones. Those of us from Safed especially feared that the Jews harbored old desires to avenge what happened during the 1929 uprising…. They realized the balance of forces was shifting and therefore the whole town was abandoned on the basis of this rationale – saving our lives and our belongings.””
    Those Arabs who stayed in Israel did not get killed and were allowed to stay. Today they and their descendants are Israeli citizens.
    Now, it was certainly very rough luck on those who ran not to be let back. What the British tried to do in 1949 was to negotiate a treaty based on an exchange of populations, as was being done in India/Pakistan on a much larger scale. The Arab countries expelled their own Jews, then refused to take in the Arabs of Palestine or sign a treaty.
    Instead they set up UNWRA, whose mission was to feed and house the refugees until they all go back to Israel. The rest of world’s refugees are taken care of by UNHCR, whose mission is to repatriate or resettle them; but the Palestinians get their own dedicated agency for whom resettlement is off the table.
    In the absence of a peace treaty, the Israelis decided it would be suicidal to let all the Arab refugees back (they would have been seeded with soldiers of the next war). Besides, they were swamped with Jewish refugees, Holocaust survivors and Jews from the Arab lands. The Arabs had plenty of land and resources to resettle their own refugees — but they didn’t want to.

    Reply

  51. shamfrompalestine says:

    @nadine, whatever happened to the Jewish Arabs after the establishment of israhell was the mere work of that entity and its Zionist ideology, whether directly or indirectly. The mutual animosity that followed was a natural outcome of the unjust seizure and occupation of Palestine by the Zionist masterminds and pawns, “G-d’s chosen people”, which continues up until today with the ongoing Nakba inflicted upon the Palestinians for long decades.
    So blame your beloved first, and stop falsely portraying the unwilling victims as guilty criminals.
    Your whole gibberish about the Mufti of Jerusalem is a most recurrent prototype of how pro-Zionists are typically and conveniently being brainwashed with the same lies among themselves. Do some research into that; we’re not Nazis, and could never be, unlike those whom you’re rooting for.
    You’re too misled to be argued, not getting into this with you again.
    Long live Palestine! Screw Zionism!

    Reply

  52. A. Menaidy says:

    Nadine, I was referring to those who were actually expelled, not those who migrated or left of their own accord whom were the vast majority. The wiki article unfortunately references too many Israeli or hasbara sources to make it seem that the vast majority were expelled rather than heeding Israels call for them to immigrate or had left under political uncertainties and understandable insecurity considering the events in Palestine. And those whom were expelled, again, while never justifiable, were a reaction to the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians – whom were the majority – off their lands. Israel unfortunately sees the utility of spreading disinformation and exaggerations on this to justify their own horrendous actions during the period and continuing it to to some degree to this day. Both sides were and are wrong in their actions. Difference is that the Pals were the majority of the indigenous population in Palestine while the Jews in Arab lands were small minorities in those respective countries. Small minorities have a history of being shuffled in and out of countries during wars or upheavals, but not majorities losing their entire country.

    Reply

  53. JohnH says:

    Nadine, shame on you. You know very well (because we had this discussion before), that the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries was far smaller than the number who left on an opportunistic basis.
    As with the rest of your arguments, you start from the basis of “they committed atrocities, so Israel is totally justified is committing far larger atrocities.”
    In this case, yes, there were expulsions. But that in no way justifies the ethnic cleansing that Israel did.
    Two wrong simply do not make a right.

    Reply

  54. nadine says:

    A. Menaidy,
    Boy are you off-base. The number of Jews who left the Arab countries was 800,000-1,000,000.
    The number of Arabs who left Palestine was 650,000.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
    Most Israelis today are these Mizrahim, Jews from Arab lands & their descendants.

    Reply

  55. A. Menaidy says:

    … and the majority of Jews whom were expelled from Arab countries vs those who left at the beck and call of Israel was too small in total numbers to have been meaningfully significant. It was not in hundreds of thousands or even 10’s of thousands. They perhaps knew it would not be advantageous to them to remain after what the Jews did to the Arabs in Palestine, and I wouldnt blame them.

    Reply

  56. A. Menaidy says:

    “If the Israelis are ethnic cleansers, they must really suck at it, to miss so many Arabs. The Arabs are more efficient: check the count of Jews left in the Arab lands. It’s very low. Aside from small communities left in Tunisia and Morocco, it’s almost nil. This wasn’t an accident.”
    Silly, silly, silly. Even the Israelis know there are limits to their actions. To have expelled ALL the Arabs in the manner they wished to would brought the whole world down upon them. The consequences and likely loss of support, even from die-hard supporters, would just not have been worth it for them. Expelling the majority was borderline acceptable in a geo-strategic sense, but any more would have removed all doubt that it was a complete, classic ethnic cleansing in the full meaning of the term. They would have been the worlds no.1 pariah. Keeping a minority if Arabs would spare them that and perhaps notch them down to 7th or 8th worlds worst pariah, a ranking they can live with.

    Reply

  57. nadine says:

    Sham, do you even know that in 1948 the Palestinian national leader, the Mufti, was an ardent Nazi who helped out in Hitler’s Final Solution in Europe, and planned to implement it in Palestine if he won? He should have been tried at Nuremburg but the French let him go in pique at the British.
    This Nazi stuff is pure projection of unfulfilled Arab intentions onto the Israelis.
    The Jordanian ethnic cleansing I referred to was their cleansing of Jews from the West Bank and Jerusalem. Not one remained. They destroyed Jewish buildings and graveyards. They used the tombstones from the Mt of Olives for paving stones. No Jews were allowed to visit the Wailing Wall when Jordan held it.
    Today we have: Israel: one million Arab citizens (not counting the WB or Gaza) Jordan: 0 Jewish citizens.
    If the Israelis are ethnic cleansers, they must really suck at it, to miss so many Arabs. The Arabs are more efficient: check the count of Jews left in the Arab lands. It’s very low. Aside from small communities left in Tunisia and Morocco, it’s almost nil. This wasn’t an accident.

    Reply

  58. A. Menaidy says:

    Nadine, that one side committed wrongs or acted egregiously (Jordan) does not give the right to the other side to continue doing the same or worse. Whatever crimes Jordan committed or laws violated paled in comparison to what the Jews did in 1948 and were in essence a REACTION for the most part to those events. Mass expulsions, massacres (Deir Yasin, Lydda, etc), villages bulldozed, wide scale ethnic cleansing of Arabs was basically what precipitated the Jordanian actions in Jerusalem (kicking out of Jews, tearing down synagogues, etc) only on a much smaller scale. That doesnt excuse the Jordanians anymore than it excuses the Jews of doing similarly to this day. Of course any logical being would realize that, but hoping the less bright may latch on to it and think you have a point here is a typical hasbara tactic.
    “Rascism” is not name calling, its basically a practice Israelis do on a mass scale today. Its a fact of life, and many Israelis and Jews admit that and write about it frequently. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, there are many good Jewish and Israeli people whom are disgusted with this state of affairs and are always at the ready to embarrass you and call you on the rubbish you often post here. 😉

    Reply

  59. shamfrompalestine says:

    @nadine, if the names were correct, it wouldn’t be considered the name-calling that you imply, would it now? It is not like we’re tarnishing the angelically clean slate of israhell’s; it was established on terrorism, still is. That should tell you alot — if you want to be told, that is.
    Time’s on our side because it’s darkest right before the dawn. And the dawn is inevitably coming for us. Besides, when in history (or in fiction) did villains last? In this case, racist, terrorist villains? That should tell you something as well.
    Who could’ve stopped them? Are you kidding? The personal misfortune that israhell came with was at the time the world had begun to become more civilized and follow the rule of law, at least superficially; i.e. the universal human rights declaration was ironically adopted in the same year. They couldn’t have possibly committed the openly paraded genocides and massacres their predecessors, the Nazis, had. But they’ve done their share of such atrocities in a more cunning way, which makes them even worse than the Nazis. And if you have any thoughts in you about the whole thing, you should clearly know why the West backs israhell so ardently. One of the reasons is it being on the Western standards of democracy, secularism, and whatever, which is not if it is a racist, apartheid, little freak entity, which it is.
    Facts corrected? That’s what your ilk call it. We call it lies and lies and some more Zionist hasbara.
    Finally, I personally haven’t followed the arguments about Jordan and the Palestinians, etc etc. But I can say one thing, for what it’s worth: Jordanians and Palestinians are Arabs and Muslims, they share mutual bonds, brotherhood even. The Jordanian control over Jerusalem and the West Bank back in the day is not typically considered an occupation. It was rather a resort for the hell Palestine was, still is, in under the Zionist occupation.
    Just get a clue.

    Reply

  60. nadine says:

    Hi kotz, notice that rational questions like, so why was Jordanian occupation and ethnic cleansing ok? or, if the Palestinians’ situation is really getting worse, why do they think time is on their side? never even get addressed, much less answered?
    It’s back to name calling: “racist, ethnic cleansing, terrorist, anti-peace, Nazi-like and above-the-law tactics” etc. If Israel was remotely as claimed, the territories would have been ethnically cleansed and annexed long ago, who could have stopped them? but this simple point seems to elude them.
    Makes you think that they know they don’t really have an argument. They just trot out falsified histories which project the tactics of their own side (pro-Nazi, terrorist, ethnic cleanser, etc) onto the Israelis. When their facts are corrected, they do more name-calling.

    Reply

  61. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Leverage the crisis
    At this time, Israel has opportunity to seize the moment, secure its future
    Steven M. Goldberg Published: 04.01.10, 12:13 / Israel Opinion
    Rahm Emanuel famously proclaimed, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Ironically, although the president’s chief of staff has proven to be a false friend of Israel, the leadership of the Jewish state would do well to heed his advice.
    That Israel is in peril is obvious. Israel’s enemies sense the opportunity to destroy it through a perfect storm, a confluence of events that seem to leave Israel reeling and vulnerable. First and foremost is the unmistakable betrayal by the president of the United States, who has loudly broadcast his eagerness to sacrifice the security of the Jewish state to appease the Muslim world. Israel is under enormous duress to surrender vital territory to allow for the creation of a Palestinian state within its borders. That such a development would be catastrophic for Israel is apparent to anyone who knows history. As former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin stated, “The Palestinian state can only emerge on the ruins of Israel.
    In addition, Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, and it is clear that the international community will do nothing to stop it. President Obama appears to be pressuring Israel to refrain from military action to stop the Iranian threat. Hezbollah and Hamas have restocked their arsenals of rockets and missiles, which now threaten to reach the center of Israel, including Tel Aviv. The European Union is championing the Fayed Plan, pursuant to which the Palestinian Authority would unilaterally announce the establishment of the Palestinian state, which would shortly thereafter be recognized by the United Nations Security Council. In view of President Obama’s indifference and even antipathy to Israel, the United States cannot be counted on to exercise its veto.
    Ominous as all this seems, Israel has the opportunity to seize the moment and secure its future. The actions required are not for the faint of heart.
    With regard to Iran, Israel can let the United States know in no uncertain terms that it will take military action against Iran, with or without American assistance. If the Obama Administration balks, and perhaps even threatens to withhold military hardware to Israel that might be necessary for a successful conventional strike, Israel can advise the US, discreetly yet firmly, that it has non-conventional options, i.e., tactical nuclear weapons.
    continues……..
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3869925,00.html
    So, if you were Iranian, wouldn’t you DEMAND your government pursue a nuclear deterent? These fanatics in Israel are batshit crazy.
    Why are we pissing our money away on this dangerous and racist little shithole of a country? Does anyone really believe China or Russia will sit idly by while Israel nukes Iran?
    Radical Islamists, it appears, are far less dangerous than radical Jews are. Who is threatening nuclear attack? .

    Reply

  62. shamfrompalestine says:

    @kotsabasis, paranoid much?
    Just like some wise person in here said, israhell is self-destructive as it is. With its racist, ethnic cleansing, terrorist, anti-peace, Nazi-like and above-the-law tactics, it can’t be tolerated any longer. They’re giving their nemesis a most appreciated hand — israhell is. Subsequently, “Islamists”, your example being Iran, don’t need to bother themselves plotting whatever delusively dreaded holocausts that are supposedly directed towards a world backed, powerful military and nuclear arsenal possessing “state”, mind you.
    Such is the astonishing irony of it all: a tyrannic aggressor made victim.
    So keep at it for all your heart’s desire, nothing’s going to change what should and will be. Eventually, the truth will prevail and justice will be served.

    Reply

  63. A. Menaidy says:

    Nadine’s IS a Zionist narrative and so is your’s as evident from your blog with topics like “Hardline Approach against Israel Will Defeat U.S. Strategic Interests” and other crap throughout. Never mind what individual posters may opine, but the facts remain that Israel is in stark defiance of international law and is an occupying power that unleashes indiscriminate hell upon the people of the lands it has stolen. This is thoroughly documented not by Islamists, but by Jews and Israelis themselves, many of whom are conscientious objectors to Israels sickening conduct that besmirches their good names. The Hasbara machine may occasionally pull the wool over peoples eyes but can never counter established, documented facts, UNSC resolutions, international laws and numerous HR organizations with lies and the usual assorted BS they relentlessly spew. You prey on the ignorant and uninformed and hope they remain that way, that is the only route for the hasbara brigade.

    Reply

  64. kotsabasis says:

    shamfrompalestine
    If Nadine

    Reply

  65. shamfrompalestine says:

    @nadine, yet again you’re mistaken, being pro-Zionist/pro-israhell and all. But I’ll leave it at that.
    Long live Palestine! Screw Zionism!

    Reply

  66. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “People who believe, fervently, that Israel should, and can be made to, go away, can believe what they want”
    It doesn’t need to be “made” to go away. Its current course virtually guarantees that it WILL go away. Israel’s behavior is self destructive. The only question is whether or not WE wise up before Israel drags us down as well. I’m not optimistic. The little murderous, arrogant, and racist country may well start a third world war, with us right in the center of it.
    And why is anyone still engaging this hasbarist witch Nadine? Is there any doubt what lies she will tell? Have we not been through her entire script by now?

    Reply

  67. nadine says:

    “From an Israeli perspective, the question is how to get them off the dime. That is, they have to offer an inducement. Yet to offer a concrete, material concession would simply provide an incentive to do the same thing over again. So if you ask me what is the point of settlements I will say, well, it isn’t to be nice. It’s to put pressure on the Palestinians to negotiate. Because the longer it takes, the harder it will be.” (Larry)
    As you say, Negotiation 101. The corollary is obvious; if the Israelis really began to do what the Palestinians accuse them of daily, i.e. annex more land for new settlements, negotiations would become more likely as the Palestinian see they also have ‘what to lose’ by waiting.
    Personally, I think they might as well; the Palestinians have already cried “Wolf” over the issue so many times that Israel is already paying the diplomatic price for a ‘crime’ they never committed. So they might as well go for it.

    Reply

  68. nadine says:

    “Common sense tells us that, since the Palestinians have been losing ground constantly, an argument that posits that the Palestinians keeps holding out for even better conditions — in a zero sum game with Israeli annexation — is ridiculous on its face.”
    DonS,
    So if it’s ridiculous, what are the Palestinians really holding out for? It is the Palestinians who refuse the Israeli offers but never counter; the Palestinians who refuse to come to the table. Bibi is willing to negotiate; Abu Mazen is not.
    The Palestinians may SAY they are losing ground constantly (the political benefits of the claim are obvious), but they don’t BELIEVE it; for if they did believe it, they would urgently want to do a deal to stop the process. But instead, they seem confident that time is on their side. In fact, if you look at the Israeli offers in 1994, 2000, 2001, and 2008, the offers do keep getting better, so the Palestinians have something of a point. Not as much as they imagine, however. Israel has red lines it won’t cross without signs of real seriousness from the Palestinians, which are totally absent. But the idea that Israel is temporary, that Jews just can’t manage to hold a state together, is a recurring theme in Palestinian and all Arab thinking; it leads to wishful decision making.

    Reply

  69. DonS says:

    “If you tell me that I must be paid more and more every time I refuse, naturally I will keep refusing. I would be an idiot not to.” (Nadine)
    Common sense tells us that, since the Palestinians have been losing ground constantly, an argument that posits that the Palestinians keeps holding out for even better conditions — in a zero sum game with Israeli annexation — is ridiculous on its face.

    Reply

  70. nadine says:

    I should have addressed that last post to DonS, not Larry

    Reply

  71. nadine says:

    Larry, Israel doesn’t hold all the cards. The Palestinians have the protected status of The World’s Greatest Victims Who Are Never Responsible For Anything, and Israel has the pariah status of the Jewish State, the Jew among nations.
    If Israel really held all the cards, they would have forced a settlement long ago along the lines of the Alon Plan, where the Arabs get 40% of the West Bank under Jordanian rule. Israel would be happy with that. Obviously Israel must not have had all the cards (or have played them very stupidly if it did); or the Alon Plan would be settled reality today.

    Reply

  72. nadine says:

    “Therefore, the onus is on Israel to move ahead with bigger and better opening gambits if they have serious intent. ” (DonS)
    Here’s another lesson from Negotiations 101: if I can demand that you give me “bigger and better opening gambits” (i.e. serious concessions) before negotiations even start, just to prove you’re serious, while I never have to give anything, what kind of damn fool would I have to be to ever agree to negotiate? If you tell me that I must be paid more and more every time I refuse, naturally I will keep refusing. I would be an idiot not to.
    As I have said before, I understand why the Palestinians are doing this. But I don’t understand why the Obama administration, who seem to actually want negotiations to start, never get wise to the act. My explanation is very simple: they’re idiots. Or they hate Israel. Or better, they’re idiots who hate Israel.

    Reply

  73. DonS says:

    Larry, I understand negotiation. In this case Israel holds all the cards and thinks it can remain that way. Therefore, the onus is on Israel to move ahead with bigger and better opening gambits if they have serious intent. Unless, as some here believe, Palestinians are just into self flagellation and cannot be induced to negotiate under any circumstances..
    Nadine, I cannot rival your astroturf right wing machine with mere common sense. Won’t even try.

    Reply

  74. nadine says:

    “But Jerusalem is to be the undivided capital of Israel?
    But Israeli expansion should continue apace while Palestinians are continually compressed, their lands and farms expropriated, and their ability to travel within the territory continually reduced?”(DonS)
    DonS, The Israelis have already offered to divide Jerusalem twice: once in 2000 and once again in 2008. The Palestinians said NO.
    The Palestinians have made an art form of squawking over every Israeli building permit; however, the vast majority of current building is simply building up on existing footprints, not further compressing anything. The Palestinians run out and claim otherwise, secure in the knowledge that their “amen corner” (to coin a phrase) neither knows nor cares about the difference.
    To give an example of the latest casus belli, Ramat Shlomo is in North Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem, has been there for twelve years, has 20,000 people living in it; the building permit was for denser housing inside the existing city neighborhood.
    As the mayor of Jerusalem pointed out, of all the building permits for current construction in Jerusalem outside the old Green Line, two thirds are in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, and one third in predominantly Arab neighborhoods. Do you demand that ALL construction be stopped, or just construction in Jewish neighborhoods? Um, wouldn’t that also be “prejudicial”?
    The Palestinians could have already had their Judenrein capital in East Jerusalem (for it goes without saying that not a single Jew will be permitted to remain in Palestine, when and if it is ever declared). But they would have to declare a border and an “end of conflict” and that is a price they are just not willing to pay, no matter what they are offered. Even you said, DonS, that they would have do that much to get a deal. It’s not going to happen and that’s why, at bottom, Mideast peace is nowhere on the horizon.
    Peace is getting farther away today, not closer, as the Palestinians dream Obama will give them everything for nothing. The irony is, that if they cooperated with Obama and gave him something to work with, they might get a better bargain even than what Olmert offered; but they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
    In the meantime, you can’t keep a living city frozen in amber, and why should the Israelis want to? If the Palestinians think time is on their side, the Israelis are saying, think again, we can also wait.

    Reply

  75. larry birnbaum says:

    Two points for DonS.
    1. You know, everyone has their position before negotiations begin. I could as well pose the question: “But Palestinian refugees from 1948 and all their descendents are to be resettled within Israel?” Because that’s the Palestinian position at the start of negotiations. It’s a non-starter as far as Israel is concerned. The Israelis could analogously say, no negotiations until this is off the table. But that would be ridiculous: The whole point of negotiation is to make trade-offs among these kinds of initial desired outcomes on each side.
    2. The Palestinians are currently refusing to negotiate. There are numerous documented instances over the past 10+ years of their turning down offers and not responding with counter-offers. Again, that tends to cut against the whole point of negotiations — assuming, that is, that the point is actually to reach an agreement. I have my own theories about why this is but there’s no need to speculate because it doesn’t matter. From an Israeli perspective, the question is how to get them off the dime. That is, they have to offer an inducement. Yet to offer a concrete, material concession would simply provide an incentive to do the same thing over again. So if you ask me what is the point of settlements I will say, well, it isn’t to be nice. It’s to put pressure on the Palestinians to negotiate. Because the longer it takes, the harder it will be.
    Neither of these are “Zionist” talking points. They’re Negotiation 101.

    Reply

  76. nadine says:

    Sham, I suggest you go read your own links. There is little difference between what I posted and the page on demographics you linked to, as both sources were quoting the 1922 British Mandate census. Figures before the Mandate are all estimates, as Ottoman censuses stunk (non-Muslims tried hard to avoid them) and there was no entity on the map called Palestine; thus you have to tote up numbers district by district.
    You can call it “the Zionist narrative” all you want; however, the statement that no Arab country or Ottoman vileyat called “Palestine” existed in the 19th century is simply factual.

    Reply

  77. DonS says:

    People who believe, fervently, that Israel should, and can be made to, go away, can believe what they want. But again, it isn’t possible to have it both ways. Either there will be a peace that involves dropping these sorts of revanchist claims, or there will be war as far as the eye can see. (Larry B)
    But Jerusalem is to be the undivided capital of Israel?
    But Israeli expansion should continue apace while Palestinians are continually compressed, their lands and farms expropriated, and their ability to travel within the territory continually reduced?
    What kind of peace is possible, or prelude to peace while one side continues to unilaterally squeeze the other?
    Please do not regale me with the zionist talking points of how generous the Israelis are, and how the Palestinians just continue to refuse to accept generous offers, and even refuse to begin preliminary steps. It’s almost as if the Palestinians would have to try to catch a train that’s already left the station.

    Reply

  78. larry birnbaum says:

    Re the last post (and so many, many others): I understand that there are competing claims on the land of Israel. And that people were displaced from their homes by the formation of the State of Israel. And I don’t mean to sound coldhearted. But if there is to be peace, then at some point revanchist claims must be put aside. This doesn’t mean that that loss isn’t acknowledged, or redressed through compensation. It does mean that continued claims on land now lived in, for more than two generations, by others, have to be put aside if there is to be peace.
    This principle isn’t just true in the Middle East. It is (and was) true in Europe, where many borders were shifted and many people displaced. It is (and was) true in South Asia. It is (and was) true in North America. Peace requires, at some point, moving on.
    People who believe, fervently, that Israel should, and can be made to, go away, can believe what they want. But again, it isn’t possible to have it both ways. Either there will be a peace that involves dropping these sorts of revanchist claims, or there will be war as far as the eye can see.

    Reply

  79. shamfrompalestine says:

    @nadine, just like I guessed, yours is the Zionist narrative through and through. What’s left is for you to call anti-Zionism, anti-israel people “antisemites” and say Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land.
    Better revise your historical knowledge. The links I left above are a good start. And try, only try, to see things for what they really are; israhell for what it really is, and Islam and Palestine for what they really are.
    Enjoy your friends while they last.

    Reply

  80. nadine says:

    A. Menaidy, please explain why it was legal for Jordan to acquire East Jerusalem by aggressive war and change its character by ethnically cleansing it of Jews; but illegal for Israel to take East Jerusalem back in a defensive war, not ethnically cleanse it (if Israel behaved like Jordan, East Jerusalem would be 100% Jewish now), and then return property to its prewar owners? I’m missing the rationale.

    Reply

  81. nadine says:

    JohnH, if American aid is the criteria, then you should be just as upset about the human rights violations of Egypt — their prisons, full of tortured prisoners, their arrest and suppression of political prisoners, etc. We give 2 billion per year to Egypt. Yet strangely, I have never heard a peep from you about Egypt.
    80 human rights agencies are stationed in Israel, where they are free to do their work; how many are stationed in Cairo? Do you even care?
    This excuse won’t cover you; your naked hatred is showing.

    Reply

  82. nadine says:

    Sham, by 1922 Palestine was 11% Jewish, according to the British Census, so you’re not accurate for that period either.
    “Nonetheless, even if we concede your fact as the truth, those Jews living in Jerusalem at the time were Palestinian Jews. They weren’t necessarily Zionist, at least not yet, and they definitely weren’t israeli.”
    The Jews weren’t Israeli. The Arabs weren’t Palestinian. There was no such thing as Palestine before the British took over and drew it on the map in 1918 (then revised it in 1992 to separate out Transjordan as a consolation prize for the Hashemites).
    Palestine was an invention of the British Colonial office, just like Iraq. Under the Ottomans, the area was part of three provinces, all of which extended beyond the borders of Palestine: The Vilayet of Beirut, the Vilayet of Damascus, and the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. Had you asked the 19th century inhabitants of Acre what country they lived in, they would have told you, Syria, quite correctly.
    “Before the establishment of israel, many people of different religions had coexisted and lived in peace.”
    For non-Muslims, this nostalgia smacks of the Southern segregationist saying “we never had any trouble with the darkies until them outside agitators arrived”. Jews were not pleased with not being allowed in the Cave of Patriarchs or having the Western Wall used as a garbage dump; but they had no choice but to put up with it. Under Israeli rule, all three faiths can pray in their sacred shrines. It wasn’t true under Muslim rule.
    This “peacefulness” argument is a religious argument – once Muslim rule, always Muslim rule – wearing the clothes of a liberal argument. There was little that was liberal about Ottoman rule.

    Reply

  83. larry birnbaum says:

    Oy.
    “Israel has no legitimate sovereignty on any inch of land beyond the Green Line…”
    First, in the absence of a sustainable and enforceable peace treaty that resolves all outstanding issues, including claims of refugees and their descendents, Israel has no legitimate sovereignty on any inch of land WITHIN the 1949 Armistice lines either, as far as every Arab country (except Egypt and Jordan) as well as all Palestinian representatives (PA as well as Hamas) are concerned.
    This gets to the heart of the matter. When (or, unfortunately, if) a sustainable and enforceable peace treaty that resolves all outstanding issues is adopted by all parties, then (and only then) will issues of sovereignty, both Israeli and Palestinian, be resolved. You can’t have it both ways. It can’t be that Israel’s sovereignty over certain territory isn’t explicitly affirmed by the Palestinians, while Palestinian sovereignty over certain territory IS to be affirmed by Israel.
    That’s what the negotiations are about: Both, or neither. But it’s absurd to expect Israel to give up claims when the Palestinians don’t.
    Both, or neither.

    Reply

  84. shamfrompalestine says:

    @nadine, you haven’t provided the reference from which you extracted that “fact”. Saying Jerusalem histories is hardly explanatory, for you could be basing your knowledge on the Jewish/Zionist side of stories, which is evidently a bogus. And wikipedia is not a source to be quoted, by the way.
    I am talking about the period of 1910s and 20s, before the Zionist immigrant waves intensified to the degree of having 33% of the population European Jews in 1948.
    Nonetheless, even if we concede your fact as the truth, those Jews living in Jerusalem at the time were Palestinian Jews. They weren’t necessarily Zionist, at least not yet, and they definitely weren’t israeli.
    http://palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story559.html#Table 1
    http://palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story414.html
    Just like I said, Palestine in total including Jerusalem was (still is) an Arab terrority with a majority of Muslims living under Muslim rule. Before the establishment of israel, many people of different religions had coexisted and lived in peace.
    Again, whatever and however it was in the past -and heh, much less in the ancient times -, nothing could ever justify israel.

    Reply

  85. JohnH says:

    Nadine says, “human rights…it’s just another stick to beat up Israel with – and only Israel.”
    Nadine’s position is that Israel is “special” and should be exempt from criticism about human rights. We should focus on Neda, not Rachel Corrie, a young American woman killed by an Israeli bulldozer. We should focus on Tibet, not Israel, which receives $3 billion of American taxpayers’ hard earned money every year. We should ignore the Goldstone Report, the slaughter of people in Gaza and Lebanon, the daily eviction of Palestinians from their ancestral homes in Jerusalem.
    Nadine prefers that we keep quiet, so that Israel can perpetrate its ethnic cleansing and brutalization in silence.
    Nadine should know better than to falsely assert that I pick only on Israel. But it is true that I focus on human rights abuses that are done by my country, my tax dollars, and by extension in my name.
    Unlike Nadine, who prefers to condone abuses at home, I prefer to remedy those abuses first, then worry about abuses committed by others.
    Only when we have cleaned up our own act can we have the moral standing to criticize others.

    Reply

  86. A. Menaidy says:

    SC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 [Adopted unanimously at 1485th meeting]
    Reaffirming the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council; censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem; and urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect. Determines that in the event of a negative response or no response from Israel, the Security Council shall reconvene without delay to consider what further action should be taken in this matter.
    SC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 [Adopted unanimously at 2203rd meeting]
    Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
    Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.
    (U.S. is a signatory to above resolutions that were adopted unanimously)

    Reply

  87. David says:

    May the vindication of Jimmy Carter regarding the Israel/Palestine debacle come soon, and may it be resounding.

    Reply

  88. nadine says:

    “What shared values would those be between the US and Isr?” (Carroll)
    Democracy, liberty, individualism. Like I said, not your values.

    Reply

  89. nadine says:

    “So Zionists are now morally equivalent to Chinese in Tibet! There’s a high bar for you!”
    No, JohnH, it’s a high bar for YOU, since you never are the least little bit upset about the Chinese or the Turks. So clearly, you think they are fine and dandy, compared to Israel.
    Just pointing out your utter hypocrisy on human rights. You don’t give a damn about human rights. It’s just another stick to beat up Israel with – and only Israel.

    Reply

  90. nadine says:

    “@nadine, and where did you get that little fact of yours from”
    Sham, I picked that up from the histories of Jerusalem. Recreating Ottoman times statistics are tricky, but historians agree that Jerusalem (the city, not the Sanjak, or district) was populated by Jews, Christians and Muslims roughly in that order, since the late 18th century. Jews moved into a clear majority by the end of the 19th century. cf. here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem
    “Palestine as a whole had always had a majority of 95% and more of its population from Muslims, followed by Christians. ”
    What period are you talking about? That’s accurate for the middle of the nineteenth century. But by 1947, Palestine was about one third Jewish cf the population figures here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

    Reply

  91. Carroll says:

    Posted by DonS, Apr 02 2010, 6:33PM – Link
    Carroll, you are such and optimist
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Hey, I’m trying….. LOL
    I’ve been tilting windmills and busting taboos on Israel for years now. I have actually seen improvement….people aren’t being intimidated by the old zionista slurs and actually learning some of the facts about I-P and the Isr-Us relationship the MSM never let through.
    Congress hasn’t changed, but public opinion has.
    BUT…as I always said..things will really change when Israel drops that final straw on the US…and they will, it’s their nature.

    Reply

  92. ... says:

    more israeli style democracy, lol
    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/when-will-israeli-crackdown-on-haaretz-make-the-news.html
    carroll, these fanatics have to say their are shared values wiht the us and israel…. keep the lie alive!!!

    Reply

  93. Carroll says:

    Er…nadine
    What shared values would those be between the US and Isr?
    And the Isr military is superior to the US’s?
    Hummm…that news to me…and most other people.
    Bet you think you could beat the US in a war between Isr and the US. LOL

    Reply

  94. JohnH says:

    Love it! Nadine can justify Israeli behavior, by saying, “China did it in Tibet, so Zionists can do it in Palestine!” So Zionists are now morally equivalent to Chinese in Tibet! There’s a high bar for you!
    And we’re supposed to support Israel on that basis?
    The case against Israel becomes clear by the day! Thanks, Nadine!

    Reply

  95. shamfrompalestine says:

    @nadine, and where did you get that little fact of yours from?
    Palestine as a whole had always had a majority of 95% and more of its population from Muslims, followed by Christians. Whatever Jews were there, even in 1948, were mostly from Europe — well, at least according to the British stats.
    So be assured: Jerusalem is the most essential city for the Palestinians, and false claims won’t even budge that.

    Reply

  96. DonS says:

    Carroll, you are such and optimist to think that there are fundamental shifts in the way the AIPAC juggernaut can jerk around the American body politic, the media, the universities, etc.
    Yes, I agree, Obama is attempting to push some tactical buttons in the service of [what any honest and sane person would identify as] imperative strategic shifts in US mideast policy.
    Too many times have I surmised that a change might be possible over . . . decades. Sad to say, the zionistas have amazing staying power and subversive influence over American policy, notwithstanding the shuck and jive two step that the apologists trot out to decry critiques of the Lobby, goose their anti-Semitic wolf cries, and generally plump for ‘poor little Israel’, or ‘powerful misunderstood Israel’, or whatever it takes to blackmail the CW.

    Reply

  97. nadine says:

    frenchconnection, Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality or majority since the 18th century. Curious you omit that little fact from your history.

    Reply

  98. nadine says:

    “Criticism can only go so far until it reaches an unstated limit at which point the constraining factor appears to less to do with the issues than it does with the individual

    Reply

  99. Carroll says:

    Maybe nadine will explain to us why the US should support Israel?
    Why we should have supported it to begin with in 1948?
    Marshall and Petraeus aren’t the only military commanders to advise that Israel is a libility to the US, that it hasn’t had any stragetic value to the US since the Cold War and even then very little. If you go thru the presidential libraries you will see this has been the foreign service and military advice to every president begining with Truman.
    In every operation the US has had in the ME we have had to ‘pay’ Israel not to get involved because it would cause us more problems and we didn’t definitely didn’t need their military help anyway… and even had to upgrade their defense systems to protect them from strikes each time.
    And in each one of Israel’s regional wars that had nothing to do with, and most often harmed, US ME interest and relations we have had to airlift Israel additional military supplies for their wars. The ‘intelligence’ we get from Israel is most often faulty and ginned up (stovepiped as in Iraq info)to acheive some agenda for Israel itself, not US interest.
    o.k. nadine…the floor is yours….why should the US and it’s taxpayers support Israel?

    Reply

  100. Carroll says:

    No Fear Levy!
    And he’s right,there should be no limits on discourse because of fear in the zionism or I-P debate. I wonder if today it would be possible for the US zionist to attack Juan Cole as easily as they did a few years ago and deny him a job. Or to attack Chas Freeman as they did now that Petraeus has spoken. I think the days of being able to smear such people and those such as Carter and Tutu are coming to a close in the not too distant future if it hasn’t already.
    Gideon Levy interview
    by Paul Woodward on April 2, 2010
    In an interview for Electronic Intifada, David Cronin spoke to Gideon Levy

    Reply

  101. JohnH says:

    Ah yes, Ann Coulter’s clone Nadine once again reveals her 19th century values: Nations can invade others and do anything they want with those living there–enslave them, cage them, exterminate them, sell them to the circus, etc.
    Fortunately the world has progressed into the 21st century and has adopted conventions on respecting human rights. Unfortunately many Israel supporters like Nadine have not.

    Reply

  102. nadine says:

    “Without Jerusalem on the table, Palestinians not only lack incentive to negotiate, they lack any incentive to maintain the two-state framework. ”
    Funny, that exactly resembles the Palestinian attitude with Jerusalem. The Taba Accords, Ehud Olmert’s offer would have given the Palestinians Arab East Jerusalem for their capital — and were refused by them.
    That’s because the will make no deal that leaves Israel standing. Inside Jerusalem or outside, they don’t care, it’s just another excuse in an 80 year line of excuses for why no compromise settlement is ever possible.

    Reply

  103. nadine says:

    I see Mark Perry is at it again, quite unfazed by the fact that General Petraeus has been put to the trouble of denying the false opinions that Perry put in his mouth from DC to Israel to Afghanistan.
    Heck, Perry is probably hoping for a repeat. Just so long as they spell his name right, isn’t that how it goes?

    Reply

  104. nadine says:

    “”Could you imagine what would happen today if the United States annexed Mexico down to Mexico City, claimed it as part of Texas, then began building US cities there and preventing Mexicans from entering?”
    Hey that is how the US acquired Texas.”
    New Mexico, Arizona and California as well. Has Yousef Munayyer ever heard of the Mexican War, I wonder?
    You could also look at how China acquired Tibet (1959) and Turkey acquired Northern Cyprus (1974).
    The difference being a) these were offensive, not defensive, wars, unlike 1967 where Israel offered Jordan the chance to stay out of it, and only began to fight to repel the Jordanian attack, b) the West Bank didn’t even belong to another country, unlike Tibet and Cyprus and c) Turkey and China are powerful countries that don’t give a hoot about morality, so nobody bothers to lecture them.
    These dopes don’t know anything about history. That’s because they don’t care. Their arguments are strictly rationalizations anyway, means to a predetermined end.

    Reply

  105. Carroll says:

    We are now into a trillion of dollars and the seventh decade of the US Israel problem. The US has been advised since the 40’s by succeeding adm advisors and military commanders that a close relationship with Israel is not in our best interest.
    Will Obama heed the advice?
    http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/01/petraeus_wasnt_the_first
    Petraeus wasn’t the first
    Posted By Mark Perry Thursday, April 1, 2010 – 5:09 PM Share
    In early February of 2006, I submitted a book proposal about the wartime relationship between Generals George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower to a group of New York publishers. I had worked on the proposal for nine months and believed it would garner significant interest. Two weeks after the submission, I received my first response – from a senior editor at a major New York publishing firm. He was uncomfortable with the proposal: “Wasn’t Marshall an anti-Semite?” he asked.
    I’d heard this claim before, but I was still shocked by the question. For me, George Marshall was an icon: the one officer who, more than any other, was responsible for the American victory in World War Two. Hews the most important soldier of his generation – and a man of great moral and physical courage.
    That Marshall was an anti-Semite has been retailed regularly since 1948 – when it became known that he not only opposed the U.S. stance in favor of the partition of Palestine, but vehemently recommended that the U.S. not recognize the State of Israel that emerged. Harry Truman disagreed and Marshall and Truman clashed in a meeting in the Oval Office, on May 12, 1948. Truman relied on presidential adviser Clark Clifford to make the argument. Clifford faced Marshall: the U.S.had made a moral commitment to the world’s Jews that dated from Britain’s 1919 Balfour Declaration, he argued, and the U.S would be supported by Israel in the Middle East. The Holocaust had made Israel’s creation an imperative and, moreover, Israel would be democracy. He then added: Jewish-Americans were an important voting bloc and would favor the decision.
    Marshall exploded. “Mr. President,” he said, “I thought this meeting was called to consider an important, complicated problem in foreign policy. I don’t even know why Clifford is here.” Truman attempted to calm Marshall, whom he admired – but Marshall was not satisfied. “I do not think that politics should play any role in our decision, “he said. The meeting ended acrimoniously, though Truman attempted to placate Marshall by noting that he was “inclined” to side with him. That wasn’t true – the U.S. voted to recognize Israel and worked to support its emerging statehood. Marshall remained enraged.
    When Marshall returned to the State Department from his meeting with Truman, he memorialized the meeting: “I remarked to the president that, speaking objectively, I could not help but think that suggestions made by Mr. Clifford were wrong. I thought that to adopt these suggestions would have precisely the opposite effect from that intended by him. The transparent dodge to win a few votes would not, in fact, achieve this purpose. The great dignity of the office of the president would be seriously damaged. The counsel offered by Mr. Clifford’s advice was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem confronting us was international. I stated bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice, and if I were to vote in the next election, I would vote against the president.” Put more simply, Marshall believed that Truman was sacrificing American security for American votes.
    The Truman-Marshall argument over Israel has entered American lore – and been a subject of widespread historical controversy. Was Marshall’s opposition to recognition of Israel reflection of his, and the American establishment’s, latent anti-Semitism? Or was it a credible reflection of U.S.military worries that the creation of Israel would engage American a defense of the small country that would drain American resources and lives? In the years since, a gaggle of historians and politicians have weighed in with their own opinions, the most recent being Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.Writing in The Washington Post on May 7, 2008, Holbrooke noted that “beneath the surface” of the Truman-Marshall controversy “lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple – oil, numbers and history.”
    But that’s only a part of the story. In the period between the end of World War Two and Marshall’s meeting with Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued no less than sixteen (by my count) papers on the Palestine issue. The most important of these was issued on March 31, 1948 and entitled “Force Requirements for Palestine. “In that paper, the JACCS predicted that “the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States]in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” The JACCS speculated that these objectives included: initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine, acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration, the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine and the expansion of “Eretz Israel “into Transjordan and into portions of Lebanon and Syria. This was not the only time the JCS expressed this worry. In late 1947, the JCS had written that “A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East” to the point that “United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.” That is to say, the concern of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not with the security of Israel- but with the security of American lives.
    In the wake of my March 13 article in these pages (

    Reply

  106. AIPAC doesn't speak for me says:

    Let us be more precise. There are many Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace
    Jews out there who disagree with AIPAC. We are not, and we
    resent the implication, a single voice. See http://jStreet.org for
    divergent views. Additionally, we must make distinctions between
    outlying “suburbs” of J’lem and the Old City. Jews were kept out
    of the Old City (beyond the Green Line in E. J’lem) between 1947
    and 1967. Right before the Jordanians were booted in the 6-day
    war, they demolished many of the old Jewish landmark structures.
    Jew’s will never give up access to the Holy Sites that remain and
    have been rebuilt nor should we. It’s the building in the “suburbs”
    that is problematic and an impediment to the peace process.

    Reply

  107. frenchconnection says:

    Jerusalem ?
    do you mean al-Quds al-Sharif ?
    Jerusalem isn’t “Jewish” since 135 CE
    1) The Romans/Byzantines ruled it for 400 years and most of its inhabitants became Christians (that’s a longer period than the mere existence of the USA).
    2) The Persians (Sassanids)who weren’t yet Muslims took it 614 after slaughtering 10 thousands of Christians and hold it for 15 years. It was then reconquered by the Christian Byzantines 629.
    3) It became a holy Muslim city 638 and the Christians were allowed to worship.
    4) It fell for some time into the hands of the Crusaders who among others massacred all Jews (which were a minority). Then back to Muslim rule until 1948. Which means that the majority of the inhabitants (except some minorities) were Judeans who had first converted to Christianity then to Islam.
    in the light of above, if every modern country or group in diaspora would claim “I want this city because it was my capital, or mine, 200 years ago”
    we could brace for the ultimate World War of everybody against everybody.
    There is a special UN agreement 1947 about the status of the city, let stick to it.

    Reply

  108. j. MIchaels says:

    “Could you imagine what would happen today if the United States annexed Mexico down to Mexico City, claimed it as part of Texas, then began building US cities there and preventing Mexicans from entering?”
    Hey that is how the US acquired Texas.

    Reply

  109. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Out From the Shadows PDF
    AIPAC confronts its worst fear: daylight.
    By Philip Weiss
    Digg Stumble Upon Newsvine Slashdot Mixx Diigo Google Delicious Reddit Facebook
    In that radical handbook on the workings of American society, the Wizard of Oz never recovered once Dorothy pulled back the curtain of her own innocence. One would like to believe that AIPAC will never recover from a brutal spring that has exposed its real interests to the American public. Even supporters of the Jewish state have criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for fully taking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

    Reply

  110. chumanist says:

    By all fair, neutral and meritorious interpretations of international law, the issue of the centrality of Jerusalem rests with the justified defacato and dejure right of the Palestinian people; the ongoing building plan by the Israeli government is nothing but self-acclaimed hoodwinking Israeli interpretation of the international law as a private state law.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *