Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Netanyahu's race-baiting was long-planned, not a 'lapse in judgement'

The prime minister’s Election Day warning that ‘Arabs are coming out in droves to the polls’ was the culmination of months of focus groups and a clear-eyed strategy from Likud operatives, a new Channel 2 report reveals.

By Mitchell Plitnick

Benjamin Netanyahu gives a victory speech on election night, March 18, 2015. (Photo: +972 Magazine)

Benjamin Netanyahu gives a victory speech on election night, March 18, 2015. (Photo: +972 Magazine)

Controversial comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about heavy voter turnout in Israel’s Arab sector were not one-time mistakes but part of a broader strategy executed by the Likud campaign, a report broadcast Monday by Israel’s Channel 2 News demonstrated.

Netanyahu was heavily criticized, at home and abroad, for his last-minute plea for right-wing voters to support him at the polls in order to block Arab electoral strength. “Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls,” Netanyahu declared in a video message broadcast on Facebook. “Left-wing organizations are busing them out.”

The comment drew a rebuke from the Obama administration and Netanyahu expressed his “regret” in an apology to Israel’s Arab community after the election, casting the race-baiting remark as a simple lapse in judgment during a heated campaign.

But the new report by Amit Segal, a well-known religious and right-wing political commentator, casts a sharp and unflattering light on the last days of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign for re-election in 2015.

Segal describes a process, including polling and focus groups, which had shown the Likud that dealing with economic matters, or going after Bennett was not a winning strategy. Rather, their research had suggested that Likud does best when voters are afraid of the consequences of a left-wing victory and that the issue of security, being tough with relation to the conflict with the Palestinians, was Netanyahu’s greatest strength. Fear, in other words, was the best way for Likud to get votes.

An SMS sent out on Election Day: “Voter turnout triples in the Arab sector! The fear is coming true: Abu Mazen’s calls and American money are bringing the Arabs to the polls. Go vote!”

A text message sent out to millions of people on Election Day: “Voter turnout triples in the Arab sector! The fear is coming true: Abu Mazen’s calls and American money are bringing the Arabs to the polls. Go vote!”

For much of the campaign, Netanyahu and other leaders did not fully heed this advice. While they did focus on security, they did so in a way that looked more beyond the borders than within the country. Even when Netanyahu was using fear in his campaign, it was much more focused on external threats like ISIL, like in the ad reported on in this piece, casting Israel’s left wing and Arab voters as too weak to oppose such forces.

They also tried to engage with Bennett from the right and on the economy from the center. It was only on the last day that they employed their anti-Left and anti-Arab strategy to its fullest. As Segal writes, “Focus group results from three months earlier materialized at the end.”

Those focus groups led Likud campaigners to undertake a massive campaign of fear on Election Day. The fear of Arabs, and by implication, the involvement of Palestinian citizens of Israel in a government led by the Zionist Union, was used to drive right-wing voters to the polls and ensure that they would vote Likud rather than one of the other right-wing parties.

“At 11 a.m. on Election Day, it dawned on the Likud that they were trailing the Zionist Union,” Segal reports. “That was the signal to begin the bombardment. On Election Day alone, some five million text messages were sent…It cost eight million shekels more than they had planned, but to the Likud it was worth every penny.”

“On that last day,” Segal continued, “all the messages and status updates were on one subject. It was not about [Isaac] Herzog or [Jewish Home Leader Naftali] Bennett, but only about Arabs and the specter of the power of the Joint List (a mostly Arab coalition of parties).”

Segal reports that the messages sent included: “Voter turnout triples in the Arab sector,” “Arab residents of Be’ersheva vote en masse. Don’t let them appoint the ministers in the next government,” “Commentator Ehud Ya’ari on Channel 2 just now: Hamas calls on Arabs in Israel to get out and vote.”

At 8:00 p.m. that night, Israeli television projected the final exit polls. But, Segal reports, “In the next two hours between the end of projections and the actual closing of polls, a really dramatic thing happened: in the previous election, about 230,000 people voted between the hours of 8 and 10 p.m. In 2015, however, a huge turnout of almost 600,000 people flooded the polls—the vast majority, Likud voters.”

It’s clear from this report that, far from a simple, heat of the moment mistake, Netanyahu’s racist rhetoric was part of a strategy that was planned well in advance, one that was activated when the prime minister feared his re-election was slipping away.

Mitchell Plitnick is the vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Follow him on Twitter at @MJPlitnick.

Watch the full Channel 2 report:

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ben

      Peter Beinart on the dishonesty and manipulativeness of Netanyahu:

      “in the West Bank, Israel is only a democracy for Jews. For Palestinians, all of who live under Israeli control but without Israeli citizenship, Israel isn’t a democracy. It’s closer to a police state…
      This is the reality that Netanyahu wants to ensure Americans don’t discuss. And so his government responded to Shapiro’s comments by slandering the U.S. ambassador as indifferent to Palestinian terrorism. “The ambassador’s statements, on the day when a mother of six who was murdered is buried, and on a day when a pregnant woman is stabbed – are unacceptable and wrong,” declared the Prime Minister’s Office. “Israel enforces the law on Israelis and Palestinians.” Notice the dishonest language. Yes, Israel enforces “the law” in the West Bank. That law just differs depending on whether you’re a Palestinian or a Jew. And why is it “unacceptable” for Shapiro to question Israeli policy on a day in which Israelis die? His comments were both true and shared by many of the Israeli security officials who fight terrorism for a living. Netanyahu, as he so often does, was exploiting Jewish death to win arguments that he can’t win any other way.”

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.699829

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        Lots of Americans discuss this. Everyone sees it before their eyes. The root question is why does USA (politicians, not the people) support it? Is it nothing more than a free-for-all for businesses in West Bank under lax regulations (martial law)? Is it to use Israel as our proxy to control the Middle East (what happens when Israel uses its nuclear weapons on its own)? Is it because USA is forced to do it because it owes more than it can pay to central banks including Rothschilds (IMF)? The “peace and freedom” reason for supporting Israel is wearing a little thin.

        Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        And the WB will continue to have to be policed so long as the WB Arabs refuse to sign a peace deal and the state of war which the WB Arabs declared on us in 1947 persists.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Giora Me'ir

      He learned from the master race baiters in the U.S. Like Jesse Helms.

      Reply to Comment
    3. David

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

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

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

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

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

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        If it is so terrible then why are they unwilling to sign a peace deal with us? If they would, the occupation would end, and the Arabs would have their own country.

        David’s above rhetoric is pure demagoguery.

        Reply to Comment
        • TB7

          Please explain Gustav, why an ccupation has to violate the international and human rights of the occupied. Then I will explain to you, why an occupier would not be interested in ending it even if the occupied would give into demands that violate their international and human rights, too.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Please observe what these propagandists do…

            They are besides themselves lamenting how evil Israel torments torchers and victimizes the hapless innocent Palestine an Arabs so that their lives are not even worth living…

            Yet when reminded that all they have to do to improve their lives, end the occupation and live in their own state, is to negotiate and sign a peace deal with Israel…

            So what is the typical propagandist’s response to that? Nah, Israel just does not want to end the occupation…

            But we do, provided that the Palestinian Arabs sign a peace deal with us and they formally renounce their policies of aggression towards us. Without that, the occupation won’t end!

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            I knew that you wouldn’t answer my question, cause you know why Israel has to violate the international and human rights of the Palestinians and has no interested in ending the occupation.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The only thing you know, Benny, oops, I mean TB7 is to be one eyed.

            You lament that we are not nice to your Palestinian Arabs? But you forget that they started this war. They persist with this war and they refuse to sign a peace deal. So in the meanwhile, we have to police them and stop them from stabbing, rocketing, stoning, running down or blowing up or massacring by other means Jewish Israelis. That process is not easy and not nice. So you are critical of us but not of them for not making peace. That’s because you were born one eyed. And you will die one eyed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            When any of these characters get substantively challenged out comes the “You are Benny!” card. Amusing. Faintly.

            “they refuse to sign a peace deal.”

            Why do you repeat this fatuity endlessly?

            You refuse to sign what they want. They refuse to sign what you want. What kind of swindler would construe this as a one way refusal? No Palestinian leader can agree to settlements like Ariel. I’ve heard tell that no current Israeli leader will agree to relinquish Ariel. That fat piece of thievery sitting deep in the heart of the West Bank and making contiguity impossible. And the average Israeli thinks that’s swell and does not want to know what its army does to maintain the vise-like grip on the West Bank. Where does that leave us? Where Sternhell knows things are: “Indeed, since the nation doesn’t want to know and its leaders are either partners to the oppression or too pusillanimous – Isaac Herzog and Yair Lapid lead this camp – only externally imposed sanctions will break its repose.”

            You have not answered TB7. Because you can’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”You refuse to sign what they want. They refuse to sign what you want. What kind of swindler would construe this as a one way refusal? ”

            No not at all Benny, I admit that we too refuse to sign their dictates. What a surprise. They are trying to achieve by political pressure what they could never achieve with their violence. They are trying to weaken us fatally so as to set us up for finishing us off down the line. Of course we can never agree to that!

            But that has nothing to do with THEIR refusal to sign a peace deal which includes our demands. Whey? Because if one believes YOUR extreme leftist rhetoric and demagoguery, their current life is unbearable!

            So it begs the question. Why don’t they take up the option of signing what according to them is an unfavorable peace deal but which would nevertheless end their current misery and allow them to live in their own state free from the occupation.

            The answer of course is obvious Benny. Because as unpleasant as the occupation is, it isn’t nearly as miserable as you polemicists claim. So they would rather wear it in order to retain their option to try and destroy us at some future time when they hope circumstances would favor them. In the meanwhile with the help of faithful allies such as you the extreme lefties, they hope to turn the international community against us in order to weaken us. Of course, by agreeing to a peace deal with us, they would all but eliminate such an option. They don’t want that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You did not answer David either. He quotes serious people in a position to know. Burston, Liel, Gazit, Ophir, Kasrils…. That’s not rhetoric and it’s not demagoguery.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Serious people? Don’t make me laugh.

            They are all extreme left wingers. You may as well look in the mirror and claim that your mirror image agrees with you. Or quote from Al Jazeera.

            Give us a break. Would you like me to quote from Arutz Sheva and expect you to accept that as proof? You’d be scandalised and you’d jump up and down claiming that they are biased right wingers.

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            Just state the obvious – you don’t have a f&#k’n clue. You’ve skirted around the points made by David and TB7 – instead of being a “man” you hide behind more obfuscation and whataboutery, name calling and insults, the “Ben, oops I mean (fill in the blank)”, obviously the result of a zionist “education”. Oops indeed. Please don’t forget to include a side or two of antisemitism with your regularly programmed eruptions of vitriol and self pity, like a Mt. St Helen’s of drek and schmaltz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZS1J3VrxnM0

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            A longstanding Haaretz columnist of distinction, a former Foreign Ministry director-general, an IDF Major General, a Tel Aviv University professor of philosophy, a key player in the struggle against the former South African apartheid regime and minister for intelligence in the current government, and a distinguished international expert on European fascism who fought in Israel’s wars from the early days and has seen it all and who survived an attempt on his life by a right wing terrorist bomber . . . versus . . . a crude, low brow settler-written newspaper? Are you kidding me?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Because, look, if you are saying that “bias,” right or left, is all there is to it, and that experience and true authority and discernment have nothing to do with it, then you are admitting that you have nothing to stand on except your own biases, and that people who have true experience and authority in this do not exist, that it is only about what “bias” you harbor. I on the other hand think it is not simply “bias” I am standing on.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Don’t bother to describe what you call your thinking process to me Benny. Sheep things like you. You listen to what a demagogue says and you accept it without question. There are plenty of respected clever people who disagree with your chosen demagogue or demagogues but you don’t even bother thinking about what THEY say or THEIR logic because they are not your chosen demagogue/s.

            A thinking person on the other hand reads up both sides of the topic. They accept some points from both sides while they are critical of other points on both sides because they are thinking human beings and can figure things out for themselves. They are not sheep like you Benny.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “There are plenty of respected clever people who disagree with your chosen demagogue”

            Yeah? By all means quote them then. Not a settler rag. The “sheep” charge is empty anti-intellectualism. You hate that I and others bring to light analyses by intelligent Israelis who know what is going on on the ground and in the world. For the same reason you hate +972. What you’d like to do is make this a war of stock, off the shelf hasbara points. Nothing doing.

            “A thinking person on the other hand reads up both sides of the topic”

            This, from you, is nothing more than “let’s be ‘evenhanded’ about this for another 49 years while we establish more facts on the ground.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You want quotes from respected individuals who disagree with your blame-Israel-no-matter-what? Okey dokey, here is what Bill Clinton said to Arafat.

            BC:”So a couple of days before I leave office, Arafat says, calls to tell me what a great man I am. And I just said, “No, I’m not. On this I’m a failure, and you made me a failure.” But I said, “You are the greatest campaign manager in history,” I said, “because you’ve just elected Sharon by a majority that’s huge, and you think it doesn’t matter, and you’ll see.”

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Again, as usual, Gustav, you won’t explain why has to violate international and human right law. Maybe because I promised you that in return I would explain to you, why an occupier would not be interested in ending an occupation even if the occupied would give into demands that violate their international and human rights? Is that what you call “peace”? Fundamental injustice?

            You claim that the Palestinans “are trying to achieve by political pressure what they could never achieve with their violence.”. They are defininetly not the party who did and still does the opposite. Again and again you claim that Palestinian Arabs started the war. But what yould you call it, if Israeli Jews were trying to prevent a partition of Israel and the expulsion of Jews to avoid Israel’s 25% minority becoming a majority? “Israeli Jews started the war”?

            I would like to add the following historical quote from the secret “Draft Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett) Washington”. It was written 11 days before Israel’s proclamation.

            “Subject: Future Course of Events in Palestine

            The refusal of the Jewish Agency last night to agree to our proposal for on-the-spot truce negotiations in Palestine on the grounds that they could not accept the “moral obligation” to undertake such conversations rather clearly reveals the intention of the Jews to go steadily ahead with the Jewish separate state by force of arms. While it is possible that Arab acceptance [!] of our proposal might place the Jewish Agency in such a position vis-à-vis public opinion that it would have to go through the motions of looking for a truce, it seems clear that in light of the Jewish military superiority which now obtains in Palestine, the Jewish Agency will prefer to round out its State after May 15 and rely on its armed strength to defend that state from Arab counterattack. […]

            If these predictions come true we shall find ourselves in the UN confronted by a very anomalous situation. The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. […]

            The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.
            https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d205

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Wow.

            So the Jewish agency accepted UN resolution 181 to partition Palestine in 1947.

            The Arabs did not (do you deny that?). The Arabs consequently rioted and went on a murder spree (do yo deny that?).

            In the ensuing war, 1% of the Jewish population lost their lives, nevertheless, the Arabs were fought to a standstill. And the Arabs said uncle (temporarily as it turned out). Then along came the customary outside political pressure to tell the Jews what to do or not do. Of course, prior to that when it looked like the Jews of Palestine would be slaughtered (as the Arabs promised), all we got is the usual lip service but nobody lifted a finger to help us. In fact, an arms embargo was established by the West. Funnily enough it was a Soviet satellite country, Cheslovakia, was the only one to supply us arms.

            But all that, according to TB7, means that we started the war?

            Did I call you perverse on the other thread, TB7? Is there a stronger word in the dictionary than ‘perverse’? There ought to be in order to describe people like you, TB7!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            TB7:”But what yould you call it, if Israeli Jews were trying to prevent a partition of Israel and the expulsion of Jews to avoid Israel’s 25% minority becoming a majority? “Israeli Jews started the war”?

            What the F&@%k are you talking about? What expulsion? Had the Arabs not started a war, there would have been no refugees.

            Stop pretending that the Arabs rioted and started the war to prevent the expulsion of Arabs. In fact, the Arabs were the ones who promised to murder all the Jews of Palestine in what they called their war of extermination.

            The fact that out of their own war which they started, many Arabs became refugees, as there were Jews who became refugees, we can blame the Arabs. Without their war on us, there would have been no refugees.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Ok, Gustav, so you can’t explain why has Irael has to violate international and human right law.

            But now you won’t even answer the question, what you would call it, if Israeli Jews were trying to prevent a partition of Israel. Because you would never say that “Israeli Jews started the war”. You would call it defence. And that’s exactly what happenend in 1948 when Arabs tried to defend the partion of Palestine againist Jewish colonial separatists who were trying to take over Palestine by force and expulsion.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

            > “Did I call you perverse on the other thread, TB7?”

            Yes, it perfectly demonstrates your violent abuse of people who won’t submit to your immoral and racist values on the one hand and your inability to counter arguments on a rational base on the other. Be my guest.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            So trying to prevent partition in 1947 was self defense according to you?

            But Palestinian Jews who represented a third of Palestine’s population who exercised their human right of self determination in line with the support of the UN to live in our own state is colonisation? Moreover, we were not allowed to fight back when your darling Arabs rioted and murdered us anywhere they could find us?

            You have a knack of turning things on their head and calling what the Arabs did self defense while what we did as attack? You are not only perverse but you are delusional, TB7.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            …earth to TB7. The attempt to partition an existing sovereign country by a minority of it’s population is rebellion.

            The partitioning of a colony which has two sets of sizable ethnic groups living in it is called dividing the land between them.

            Spot the difference between the two situations? Recognize where your silly analogy fits in?

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            “The partitioning of a colony which has two sets of sizable ethnic groups living in it is called dividing the land between them.”

            Palestine wasn’t “a colony” that had “two sets of sizable ethnic groups living in it”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Palestine wasn’t “a colony” that had “two sets of sizable ethnic groups living in it”.

            No? Then who lived in Palestine in 1947? ONLY Aravim?

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            “No? Then who lived in Palestine in 1947? ONLY Aravim?”

            No, mamzer, Palestine wasn’t “a colony” that had “two sets of sizable ethnic groups living in it.

            OK, antipodean Zionist mamzer, now ighh ighh some more for us.

            Entughhtain us with yawghh comedy Fghhankenstein heebghhew, antipodean Zionist mamzaghh!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You are a lying mamzegh super parrot. In 1947, a third of Palestine’s population was Jewish.

            In the Indian subcontinent the Muslim population was only 12% yet India was partitioned into two states, one Muslim (Pakistan) the other Hindu (India).

            Do ya get that, super parrot? Nah, you are too blind with hatred and rage. Screech on, you fool.

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            You are a delusional little Zionist mamzer.

            Do ya comprehend that, you stupid angry comprehension challenged Zionist parrot? Nah, your toxic, cancerous ideology has destroyed all your higher brain functions, and all that remains now is your tiny little Zionist lizard-brain, full of blind hatred and rage. So rage on, you stupid little lizard-brained Zionist mamzer.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I don’t need to entughtain you, super parrot. You entertain yourself by masturbating in public.

            Reply to Comment
          • tb7

            Gustav: “So trying to prevent partition in 1947 was self defense according to you?”

            Any partion, Gustav. The principle of territorial integrity is enshrined in the US charter.

            Gustav: “But Palestinian Jews who represented a third of Palestine’s population who exercised their human right of self determination in line with the support of the UN to live in our own state …”

            The right to self determination belonged to all citizens of Palestine, not only to its Jewish or Arab citizens. It is a right that is always exercised in a specific territory by its inhabitants.

            Gustav: “… is colonisation?”

            No. The enforced immigration of Jews under the British mandate was. It was against the will of the people of Palestine.

            Gustav: “Moreover, we were not allowed to fight back when your darling Arabs
            rioted and murdered us anywhere they could find us?”

            Goes both ways, but the protection of the territorial integrity of a country and the protection of life are two different things. And reagarding “darling” – you are getting personal again, Gustav.

            Gustav: “You have a knack of turning things on their head and calling what the Arabs did self defense while what we did as attack? You are not only perverse but you are delusional, TB7.”

            You have a knack of attacking me on a personal level, if you can’t counter my arguments. That’s whay I called a character assassin and opinion fascist in the other thread Gustav. You wrote “LOL. Read your own sentence and see yourself in what you attribute to me.” and I answered you: “Fair enough. So let’s see who’s going to attack the other first and who can discuss in a civilized manner. But I’m warning you. If you attack me once more, I will starting to prove my attribution in every commment.” But I grant you a free shot, because you may have not read it.

            Gustav: “The attempt to partition an existing sovereign country by a minority of it’s population is rebellion. The partitioning of a colony which has two sets of sizable ethnic groups living in it is called dividing the land between them.

            Spot the difference between the two situations? Recognize where your silly analogy fits in?”

            The attempt to partition a country by a minority is called a secession, not a rebellion. And Palestine wasn’t a colony.

            “How many Aravim were there in Judea 2000 years ago …?”

            The only relevant question is: Who was a citizen of Palestine in 1948.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Palestine was a colony of the Ottoman Turks for several hundred years. Then the British took over and administered the territory first on behalf of the League of Nations. Then on behalf of the UN. Both of those rulers, the Turks had the right to administer the land as best as they saw fit.

            In the mid 1800s when many of us Jews started to return and join our brothers who never left, there were no more than 350,000 people in Palestine. So if first the Turks then the Brits saw fit to let in new immigrants particularly ones who had historical connection to the land, in order to bring in new enterprise and industry to a very sparsely populated land, then they had every right to do it. Remember, Palestine was not part of a sovereign Arab empire by then for hundreds of years. When it was, Arabs administered Palestine the way they saw fit. Including forced conversions and Arabisation of it’s populace. But by 1850, the other rulers could do what they thought was best. Anyway, even that happened nearly 200 years ago so how for how long will you consider the tdescendants of those Jews to be colonisers rather than natives? You don’t think descendants of immigrants have any rights?

            Oh and many of the Arabs of Palestine are immigrants too. Many of the others are descendants of foreign invaders. But you only single out Jewish immigrants who are descendants of the natives of this land?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Look TB7, now you are using the trick of endlessly repeating your assertions without proof but repetition is not proof. So let’s just clear up your most pertinent point.

            You are saying that the UN recommendation to partition the territory of the old British mandate into two states, one Jewish, one Arab was illegal. Ok then, tell me this…

            1. Was it illegal in 1929 for Britain to partition Eastern Palestine and hand it over to the Hashemites to form the new state of Transjordan?

            2. Was it illegal to partition India into two states, one Muslim (Pakistan) and one Hindu state (India) in 1948?

            And what about all the other artificial states that they created which never existed before and which created endless wars and conflicts, were they all illegal partitions and we should now review them and force various minorities to be ruled by majorities who will at the least discriminate and persecute them or murder them? All in the name of your false claim that minority ethnic groups never have the right to self determination and self rule?

            Last but not least, do you think that after we managed to fight your Arabs to a standstill and establish a thriving state which was condoned by the UN, we are going to listen to voices like yours and allow the Arabs to take over and rule us? There is only one response to that. Chortle.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Palestine was am integral part of the Ottoman Empire: It was neither a Ottoman colony, nor a British colony. It became a state under British mandate. The mandatory even lost a case at the International Court of Justice, because it disregarded the fact that Palestine was one of the successor states of the Ottoman empire and therefore had to respect concessions which had been made during Ottoman times.

            All that the mandatory could do, was to implement the mandate under the supervision of the League of Nation, which regarded Palestinians to be a nation and Palestine a state under “guardianship”, too.

            But the mandate itself violated the right of the people of Palestine to self determination. The mandate system for Class A mandates was intented to help these states to stand on their own feet and become independent and not to delay their independence, to implement a colonial project.

            Anyone is a colonist who immmigrates and settles under the gun of a foreign power who’s controlling a territory it doesn’t posess und forces an “immigration” upon the natives violating their right to self determination. Wether by mandate or occupation. I don’t care what their faith or heritage it. They are not colonists, if they were former Ottoman subject who became Palestinian citizens immigrated with the consent of the country’s majority.

            Again, the right to self determination is a right that is always exercised in a specific territory by its inhabitants. There wasn’t a terrritory within Palestine in 1948 called X-land, in which every habitant was an X, simply because he lived in X-land and after it became a state automatically acquired a citizenship called X. If there had been one and the fundamental rights of X were violated by the Goverment of Palestine, one could make a moral case for secession. But it would be easier to make this case for the Nonjews of Israel. Especially while they had to live under military rule until 1966.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            TB7:”But the mandate itself violated the right of the people of Palestine to self determination.”

            Translation….

            The only people whose rights had to be respected in Palestine according to TB7, were the Arabs. According to TB7, Jews had no rights and for the sin of being a minority, Jews just have to put up with being ruled by others who can persecute us, cull, us, murder us whenever they have a bad hair day and they want to blame their worldly troubles on someone. Nuff said.No actually, one more thing…

            TB7 said that he does not condone persecution of minorities yet he is against minority rights to self determination. Any reader can judge what TB7 really stands for. He stands for the perpetuation of the old system in which Jews were fair game…

            As for the rest of his post, it is just repetition and distortion of history. So I will repeat again what I said and add a bit to it…

            The Ottoman Turks were the sovereign rulers of Palestine. They therefore had every right to rule it as best as they saw fit. In the mid 1800s, Palestine had no more than 350,000 people some of them were Jews. So they had every right to allow Jewish immigrants who brought in industry and capital to come in and develop that underdeveloped outpost of the Ottoman empire. Especially since those Jewish immigrants had a historic connection to this land. Ditto for the British who later took over. In fact the British had even a greater responsibility to do so because of the Balfour declaration which the League of nations endorsed. The intent was to resolve the millenia old Jewish problem of antisemitism and persecution by giving the Jews a place of their own. UN Resolution 181 to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab was a natural outcome of that mandate. It looked after the interests of both the Arab population of Palestine and the Jewish population. Each got a state. Not just the Arabs, which is what TB7 advocates.

            Had the Arabs accepted, and not been greedy. We could have cooperatively developed this region together and the Arabs could have been our partners as good neighbors. But unfortunately they had a myopic nationalistic Islamo fascist leadership who thought they could ride roughshod over us. So instead they begot a self fulfilling prophecy of of the lies which their leaders fed them. They got misery and it hasn’t been a honeymoon for us either but we shall prevail.

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            “But Palestinian Jews who represented a third of Palestine’s population who exercised their human right of self determination in line with the support of the UN to live in our own state is colonisation?

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            How many “Palestinian Jews” were there in 1920? In 1890? In 1850?

            How many of your darling “third of Palestine’s population” spoke comedy Frankenstein heebghew?

            How many comedy Frankenstein heebghew speakers were there back in 1920? In 1890? In 1850?

            “Moreover, we were not allowed to fight back when your darling Arabs rioted and murdered us anywhere they could find us?”

            You have a knack of turning things on their head and characterizing what your darling violent foreign Zionist invader and colonizer filth did as “self defense”, and characterizing what the invaded colonized and marginalized indigenous Palestinian population do as “attack”. You are both perverse and delusional because you are an anti-Semitic Zionist mamzer.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            How many Aravim were there in Judea 2000 years ago, super parrot?

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            “How many Aravim were there in Judea 2000 years ago, super parrot?”

            How many comedy Frankenstein heebghew speaking antipodean Zionist mamzers pretending to be ancient Joooooooos were there in your mythical “Judea” 2000 years ago, super stupid comedy Frankenstein heebghew speaking antipodean Zionist mamzer?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Super parrot is once again here to the rescue. He proves that when all else fails, there is always terrorism to resort to. Out there in real life, it means murdering Jews indiscriminately.

            Here, when they are out-debated. Out comes super parrot who stupefyes everyone with his constant screeching about “Zionist Mamzers”.

            It does not work for them in real life. And it won’t work for them here either.

            Screech on, super parrot. I can play your game too. I am sure that you and I between us will raise the standard of this posting board, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            This super stupid and psychotic Zionist mamzer is once again squawking and verballing like a demented Zionist parrot. He proves that when all else fails, there will always be inane platitudes about Joooooooooooooooos to resort to. Out there in real life, it means murdering Palestinians in the name of all Jews.

            What “does not work…in real life”, mamzer, is your stupid little Zionist brain.

            So rage on, you delusional little Zionist oxygen thief. And keep playing with yourself. I am sure that between you and all your sock puppets, you can mass-debate yourself into a coma…LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh goodie. Super parrot has turned up for his daily dose of medication.

            Now get this into you, ya little mamzegh. We murder those who attack us and try to murder us. Get used to it. Ok, my dear little super parrot? And we will continue to do it no matter how often stupid little squaking parrots like you complain about it. Kapish?

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Your “translation” is just another distortion of my real arguments you need to avoid. As for the rest of your post, it is just repetition and distortion of history, cause Britain never posessed Palestine, the British mandate was an illegitimate perversion of the mandate system which only legitimite purpose was to help states und Class-A-Mandates to become independent, the UN did not partition Palestine, but only recommended it and the only one who is showing greed is the party who keeps expanding beyond the territory in which it declared statehood.

            Keep being stuck in another of your propaganda loops, Gustav and claim rights for Jews and their majority which you deny for Palestinians and theirs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The only loopy person around here is YOU, TB7.

            Again…

            Before the British mandate, Palestine was an obscure backwater of the Ottoman empire for hundreds of years. It wasn’t sovereign Arab land.

            By 1947, a third of Palestine was Jewish. But you are advocating that Jewish rights had to be ignored unlike in the Indian sub continent where only 12% of the population, the Muslims, were able to partition the land and get Pakistan.

            The only thing that you and I seem to agree on is that UN Resolution 181 was only a recommendation but that too has it’s implication.

            The Jews accepted the recommendation. The Arabs rejected it and made war. They lost that war and because they lost that war, they have two choices…

            1. Wipe their nose and move on to live their lives in the state which they are still offered.

            2. Continue their war and still try to get it ALL.

            They seem to be opting for 2) but then they shouldn’t complain if we too fight back and their life is miserable. After all they are not making our life rosy either.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Gustav: “The only loopy person around here is YOU, TB7.

            Again…”

            Rofl. Your lack of self awareness is mind boggling. Calling me loopy and that continuing with “again”. But I don’t need to comment your repetitions which only show that you can’t argue against mine.

            Gustav: “By 1947, a third of Palestine was Jewish.”

            Nope, 6% of Palestine was “Jewish”. A third of the POPULATION of Palestine was Jewish and not all of them even citizens of Palestine.

            Gustav: “But you are advocating that Jewish rights had to be ignored …”

            Nope. It’s always you who has to differentiate between the rights of Jews and the rights of Nonjews. To me its simply a matter of majority ruling and the rights of a majority which you ignore, if the majority isn’t Jewish.

            So what are “Jewish rights”, Gustav? Do Arabs in Israel have something the same called “Arab rights”? Or is this just one of your countless double standards?

            Gustav: “The only thing that you and I seem to agree on is that UN Resolution 181 was only a recommendation.”

            Good for you that you have finally accepted that the partition PLAN didn’t partition Palestine. Btw, the plan was abandoned in April 1948, because it was clear that it could be only implemented by war after the recommendation was not accepted by everyone.

            Gustav: “The Jews accepted the recommendation.”

            Nope. The Jewish Agency accepted the recommendation formally, but always had plans to expand to the whole of Palestine after partition. Just read what its chairman Ben Gurion wrote about it.

            Gustav: “The Arabs rejected it and made war.”

            The majority of the people of Palestine rejected it and so the separatists had to set up their state and acquire its land by war. You would never argue that Jews would make war, if Arabs seperatists in Israel were trying to partition the country. Another double standard from you, Gustav.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            TB7:”Nope. It’s always you who has to differentiate between the rights of Jews and the rights of Nonjews. To me its simply a matter of majority ruling and the rights of a majority which you ignore, if the majority isn’t Jewish.”

            Correction. To you it is simply perpetuating an old system in which Jews have to be a minority under majority rule. Had such a majority rule been benevolent and treated it’s minorities like Jews decently, one could accept that. But history speaks for itself. We Jews have been an oppressed, discriminated against and often subject to pogroms and persecuted minority. So your mythical democratic majority rule is not a sacred elephant.

            Given our experience, we had every right to opt for self rule where WE are the majority. Your pretence that this was illegal is just your lie. There are plenty of other examples where Muslims acted exactly the same way as us when they were minorities. India/Pakistan is one example Kosovo is another. The fact that Muslims and people like you just keep on ignoring that betrays your collective hypocrisy.

            As for “my admission” that The UN resolution was just a recommendation, that has been my consistent stance when I argued against others like you who claimed that Israel’s borders are the borders which the UN recommended in 1947. I said that since the Arabs rejected the recommendation, those borders are not relevant. Because the Arabs are trying to grab all the land, we too have the right to fight for extra lands. That is why the settlements are NOT illegal. Get it? You did not force me into that admission TB7. I always had that view, ok?

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Gustav: “Correction. To you it is simply perpetuating an old system in which Jews have to be a minority under majority rule.”

            Your correction are as dishonest as your rhetorical questionsl. It’s always you who has to differentiate between the right of Jews and Nonjews. To me its simply a matter of majority ruling and the rights of a majority which you ignore, if the majority isn’t Jewish.

            “India/Pakistan is one example …”

            Rofl. The partion of India was enforced upon by Britain.

            “Kosovo is another.”

            That was not a “partition”, but it’s funny that you mention a secession which is not recognized by Israel and is different from its own. In Kosovo everybody who has habitually residing in the region called Kosovo became Kosovarian. They have to keep nobody expelled to become or maintain to be a majority in their country. That’s not the case in Israel.

            Gustav: “I said that since the Arabs rejected the recommendation, those borders are not relevant.”

            Your personal opinion is not relevant. Israel proclaimed statehood within the borders recommended in the partition plan. See also Israel’s own declartion regarding its occupation of Jerusalem:
            http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/2%20jerusalem%20declared%20israel-occupied%20city-%20governm.aspx

            Gustav: “Because the Arabs are trying to grab all the land, …””

            The Arabs of Palestine didn’t try to grab any land. They just just wanted the independence of a land that allready existed as a state under mandate. It was the Zionist who needed to grab land to create a state and to expell most of its Arabs to become a majority.

            Gustav: “… we too have the right to fight for extra lands. That is why the settlements are NOT illegal. Get it?”

            After 1945 the admission of territory by war is inadmissable and settling in occupied territories is illegal. Even for Jews, Gustav.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            TB7:”Your correction are as dishonest as your rhetorical questionsl.”

            Look TB7, there is only one dishonest person arguing here between the two of us. And it isn’t me.

            TB7:”It’s always you who has to differentiate between the right of Jews and Nonjews.”

            Whoa, hold on there. You are exhibiting your dishonesty again. This conflict is between Jews and Arabs. Not between Jews and non Jews.

            TB7:”To me its simply a matter of majority ruling and the rights of a majority which you ignore, if the majority isn’t Jewish.”

            The majority within what borders? We the Jews are the majority in Israel. Thanks for agreeing with me that the Jewish majority sets the agenda in Israel.

            TB7:Rofl. The partion of India was enforced upon by Britain.”

            Really? Then I take it you are against the existence of Pakistan and you want Pakistanis to rejoin India? Good luck with that buddy, LOL.

            TB7:”That [Kosovo] was not a “partition”, but it’s funny that you mention a secession”

            And ‘a word’ makes the seccession of the minority Muslims from the Serb majority ok? You hold consistent views don’t you TB7? When a Muslim minority separates from a Serb majority that is Halal for you. But when Jews separate from Muslims that is not Kosher, Huh? I gotta laugh.

            TB7:”which is not recognized by Israel and is different from its own. In Kosovo everybody who has habitually residing in the region called Kosovo became Kosovarian.”

            Not really! A lot of Serbs fled Kosovo. I wonder why?

            TB7:”They have to keep nobody expelled to become or maintain to be a majority in their country. That’s not the case in Israel.”

            Really? When did the Serbs who fled Kosovo return?

            TB7:”Your personal opinion is not relevant.”

            Well, my opinion is at least as relevant as your opinion. Especially since you missed the point that I made. Go read it again. You were not the one who convinced me that UN Resolution 181 was just a recommendation. I always said that to your fellow Pro Arabs who argued with me here. Check it out if you wanna…

            TB7:Israel proclaimed statehood within the borders recommended in the partition plan.”

            No it didn’t. Once Israel saw that the Arabs rejected the UN recommendation, Israel specifically refused to specify it’s borders in it’s declaration of independence knowing full well that future borders would have to be negotiated at the end of the civil war. But it seems the Arabs still refuse to end the war. So we still don’t know what Israel’s borders are.

            TB7:”The Arabs of Palestine didn’t try to grab any land. They just just wanted the independence of a land that allready existed”

            What land is that buddy? In which stone were the borders of the British mandate carved? And how come Eastern Palestine (Jordan) was separated from those fictitious borders?

            TB7:as a state under mandate. It was the Zionist who needed to grab land to create a state and to expell most of its Arabs to become a majority.”

            This paragraph is an example of the three not so wise monkeys who want to hear nothing, see nothing and certainly say nothing. Again, watch this video…

            Most of the Palestinian Arabs were not expelled by us. They fled as a result of the war that they started. Want proof? Then watch this video….

            http://youtu.be/72Ata-hY9WQ

            Listen to that startling admission in that BBC documentary video

            TB7:”After 1945 the admission of territory by war is inadmissable and settling in occupied territories is illegal. Even for Jews, Gustav.”

            LOL but for Arabs it is legal?

            By your own admission this was a civil war between two sets of inhabitants of the British Mandate. But one set, the Arabs had the right to try to grab all the land while the other, us Jews, just have to accept what the Arabs dictate to us? Raspberry to you too, LOL.

            So, when are you going to start your one man campaign against the Pakistani Muslims for daring to buck the will of the majority population of India in 1948 and daring to separate from them?

            You are beginning to amuse me TB7. Keep posting so that I can demonstrate to the rest of the non biased world what type of perverse logic we Israelis face.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            We have 1.2 million Arab citizens but our policy was to expel Arabs according to TB7. How do these two opposing claim/facts reconcile? Please explain, TB7!

            Here is a quote of how Ben Gurion reacted to our 1967 victory….

            ” Ben-Gurion insisted that all of the territories that had been captured had to be given back, very quickly, for holding on to them would distort, and might ultimately destroy, the Jewish state. He made only one exception of consequence: the Israelis should not relinquish control of the whole of Jerusalem. Ben-Gurion’s most striking assertion that night was that he did not expect immediate peace with the Arabs; for its own inner health, he said, Israel needed only to give back the territories very soon in return for a workable set of armistice arrangements.”

            How does this reconcile with the claims that you make about Ben Gurion, TB7? You wouldn’t be lying would you?

            Reply to Comment
    4. ARTH

      “American money is bringing Arabs to the polls!” How and when?

      Reply to Comment
    5. Click here to load previous comments
© 2010 - 2016 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website powered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel