Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

On Facebook, IDF illustrates Palestinian violence - with photo from Bahrain

An infographic purportedly depicting Palestinian attacks in the West Bank makes its case with a photo shot during a Bahrain protest. This would not be the first time the army posted misleading photographs to Facebook to serve its PR machine.

By Mati Milstein

On October 17, the Israeli military posted the above infographic on its Facebook page. The image includes a photograph of a young masked man holding a firebomb and featuring statistics regarding the number of firebomb attacks against Israelis in the West Bank since the start of 2012. The Israeli military urges Facebook users to share the image “because the mainstream media will not.”

In fact, the mainstream media did share this photo extensively – in its coverage of protests in Bahrain.

This powerful image has nothing to do with Judea, Samaria, Palestinians or Israelis. It was shot by Reuters photographer Hamad I Mohammed during protests in the Bahraini village of Salmabad last April.

Reuters photo from Bahrain protest, April 2012 (photo: Reuters tumblr, http://reuters.tumblr.com/)

The Israeli military’s decision to use foreign photos to illustrate attacks in the West Bank as part of its propaganda efforts (without indicating that the image is only an illustration) may raise some interesting questions about its own ethical perception and standards.

This is not the first time the army has faced this particular criticism. In June, the army marked gay pride month by posting a photograph of two male Israeli soldiers holding hands. It was later revealed that the two soldiers are not a couple and only one of them is gay.

The use of a photo unrelated to the incident it purports to be illustrating was also more striking given the recent Israeli reaction to another alleged misuse of photographs.

Last March, Israeli military and political figures demanded the United Nation’s OCHA office in Jerusalem fire a staff member after she tweeted a photograph of a fatally wounded girl, whom she indicated had just been killed by Israeli fire in Gaza.

Pro-Israel activists and government officials maintained that the photograph had been published by Reuters in 2006 and a veritable campaign was launched besmirching the OCHA employee. Beyond the hypocrisy inherent in doing something that you had only just condemned others for doing, we should remember a key distinction between the two incidents: While the OCHA employee published the concerned photograph on her private Twitter account, as a private citizen, the Israel Defense Force is an official body and its Facebook page is an official government channel.

There are two options here: 1) The Israeli military did not know the source of the Bahraini image and did not bother to investigate before choosing to use the image (an “investigation” that took me only five minutes); 2) The military was aware of the photograph’s origin and chose to use it anyway in a misleading manner.

The IDF Spokespersons’ new media section has been contacted for comment. This post will be updated should a response be received.

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
  • COMMENTS

      • @David Evans, If this article is actually true, which I doubt because of common Arab propaganda, it does not seem to disturb you, and you do not even question why the Arabs would allow their children to participate in “demonstrations” where they know that there is bound to be violence, injuries and perhaps even the risk of death. Would you allow your children to participate in a “demonstration” where the possibility of violence and injuries are likely? Of course not! But then again you probably do not see death as martyrdom favoured by Allah.

        Reply to Comment
        • Jake Singer

          The demonstrations are peaceful demonstrations. However, the Occupation considers any demonstration, even peaceful, as an act against Israel, and they attack the peaceful demonstrators. Even, putting their own agents in the crowds as provocateurs! Disgusting really. A stain on all Jews all over the world.

          Reply to Comment
          • @Jake Singer, I guess hurling rocks at soldiers is your idea of a “peaceful demonstration.” I also guess you haven’t seen how demonstrators are treated in other countries such as Norway, or Iran. lol

            Reply to Comment
    1. Palestinian

      Haaretz once used a photo of Palestinian children to advertise for financially supporting “homeless” Jewish children ,how creative Zionists can be …

      Reply to Comment
      • Matt

        You are definitely justified in pointing fingers, because Palestinians never use fake photographs to manipulate people.

        Reply to Comment
        • Palestinian

          Lets assume , for the sake of argument, that we do ,does it justify Israelis doing it ?

          Reply to Comment
          • Aaron

            @Palestinian: Are you trying to be funny? Palestinian/anti-Zionist media is NOTORIOUS for blatant factual manipulation.

            The Battle of Jenin: Palestinian media reported Pal. casualty rates at 5,000; it was really 50.

            The Muhammad al Dura incident. Staged.

            The photo of the IDF soldier supposedly advancing on a bloodied Palestinian on the Temple Mount, when in reality the man was a Jew.

            The list goes on.

            The IDF using out-of-context images is wrong and reprehensible, but ***their facts remain accurate and un-manipulated.***

            This is absolutely piddling in comparison to the blatant factual distortion and flat out lies that come out of the anti-Zionist community.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            Muhammad Al Durra was staged ? The Nakba was staged , the Naksa was staged ,the intifada was staged , cast lead was staged , land theft never happened, and the list goes on .Back to my assumption if we do manipulate photos and reports ,does it justify Israelis doing it ?I have to mention that your little nasty project in Palestine depends on manipulation , this is your specialty….

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Palestinian,

            Muhammad Al Durra was staged.

            The Nakba was a result of 1929 and other massacres. You clearly have shown that peace is not in your intentions.

            The Naksa was one of worst moves ever. Instead of having own state for more than ten years by now you just wasted another generation

            Cast lead was a military operation against hostile entity. Gazans elected Hamas whose goal is destruction of Israel. Well, keep on trying to destroy, it proved to be helpful.

            Land theft became possibility after you denied statehood.
            The world is truly unfair. First you oppress and periodically massacre a minority, than all of the sudden the minority is going to get HALF!!! of your lands, and have a state while you are going to have a state in another half. WHAT? A STATE? IN HALF THE LAND? IT’S ALL OR NOTHING!!!

            Well, apparently it’s more “nothing” than “all”

            Back to your assumption you are as free to anything you please as Israelis do however it’s a bit silly to hiss at illustrative picture having a huge baggage of hoaxes.

            Pretty much everything is based on manipulation.

            Back in 2008 Russia invaded Georgia basing it on claim that there were more than 2500 civilian victims.
            After the war it turned out that there were only about 70 killed civilians and at least half of it apparently mistakenly by Russian forces.

            The bottom line is that if you don’t want to coexist peacefully you will have to do it anyway, yet on worse conditions.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            Theodor Herzl wrote in 1895: “We shall have to spirit the penniless population (the Arabs) across the border … while denying it any employment in our own country.”

            Chaim Weizmannsaid: “Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.”

            David Ben-Gurion wrote: “I favor partition because when we become a strong power we will abolish partition and spread throughout Palestine.”

            See how peaceful Zionist Jews were ,dont forget to educate yourself about the 1929 riots (which Zionists always whine about)….. and the wall isnt yours :)

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Palestinian,

            “Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:

            “… and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth…”.

            Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[14]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world#Nineteenth_century

            You’ve been asking for it all the way, dude.

            How is it to be dhimmi, huh? Hurts?

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            I cant understand what do your claims have to do with European Zionist Jews planning to steal Palestine and establishing a Jewish state there ?You couldn’t handle the quotes I posted (which expose their nasty intentions) so you switched to the typical victim playing,dont worry I will go through your claims, but first I need a clear justification for what Zionists have been doing in Palestine for over a century.They clearly wanted to take over the land and convert it into a Jewish state despite the non-Jewish majority living there.What brought Russian and European illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine ?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Palestinian,

            1 – There is no difference between European, African or Asian Jews.

            Even you could became a real Jew – procedure takes about a year, a bit more complicated procedure that conversion to Islam though.

            Quotes which you exposed came as an answer to your forefathers’ despicable policies towards minorities, specifically Jews.

            As of “stolen Palestine”
            1 – What I really honestly don’t understand is what makes you, Palestinians, the only rightful owners.

            Firstly we got a problem with definitions.
            Who are Palestinians and on what basis do they claim the sole ownership of the land?

            Actually I like the PLO definition
            “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether in Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian.”

            Here it clearly said that “Palestinian” basically are “Palestinian Arabs”

            Now what’s interesting is on what basis did you stole that Roman toponym? What makes Jerusalemite Jew, who’s family resided there for 1500 years, less “Palestinian” than someone who’s family name is “al-Misri” (“From Egypt” lit.)

            I guess guys who made it up thought that it’s enough to take ancient name to became an ancient nation.
            Not really.

            What brought illegal Jewish migrants to Palestine?

            I pure love this question.

            However before I answer it I suggest you to think for a moment what brought at least as illegal Arab immigrants to the very same land?

            Or what made these camel-back riding invaders legal?

            The fact that it happened just a while longer ago?

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            Ashkenazi Jews arent Semtitic no matter how many “studies” your puppets can come up with.

            I quoted Ashkenazi Zionist Jews stating that they will kick out the indigenous population and replace them with illegal Jewish immigrants from Europe.

            What minorities and what policies ?If Christians or Muslims are persecuted in X country ,it doesn’t give Christians or Muslims from another continent the right to invade that country , ethnically cleanse its indigenous population and replace them with Christian or Muslim thieves from that continent ,what a lousy try that I cant give you credit for !

            How many Jews identify themselves as Palestinians? How many Jews descend from families that have inhabited the land for centuries ? in 1800, 7000 Jews lived there and I doubt you descend from those Jews!

            The land saw waves of different nations and people including Arabs from the Arabian peninsula but it doesn’t mean the entire Palestinian population ,which has been inhabiting the land at least for centuries, comes from Arabia.At least Arabs are Semites unlike the bergs mans wizes and ski/ys .FYI its Al Masri not Al Misri ,I suggest you buy another hasbara manual.And if you see Al Masri family as foreigners to the land then the Syrian Al Qudsi family comes from Al Quds/Jerusalem.The question remains , what brought Askenazi thieves to Palestine ?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Palestinian,

            Jews might be semitic, european or chinese – there is no difference.

            “I quoted Ashkenazi Zionist Jews stating that they will kick out the indigenous population and replace them with illegal Jewish immigrants from Europe.”
            You really have some problems with historic facts – these Jewish immigrants from Europe or Russia were at least as legal as Arab immigrants from Arab peninsula.

            “What minorities and what policies ?If Christians or Muslims are persecuted in X country, it doesn’t give Christians or Muslims from another continent the right to invade that country”
            Exactly – a country.
            Since there never was a Palestinian country there was nothing to invade or occupy.
            “ethnically cleanse its indigenous population and replace them with Christian or Muslim thieves from that continent”
            And since when exactly is it illegal?

            “How many Jews identify themselves as Palestinians?”
            Since in 21st “Palestinians” = “Palestinian Arabs” Jews can’t really identify themselves such. However in late 19th-early 20th centuries Jews who lived in Eretz Israel were referred as Palestinian Jews, or Palestinians.

            “The land saw waves of different nations and people including Arabs from the Arabian peninsula but it doesn’t mean the entire Palestinian population comes from Arabia.”

            Dude, are trying to bullshit me or yourself are so brainwashed that can’t accept simple facts?

            According to your own definition “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether in Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian.”

            Palestinians = Palestinian Arabs = Descendants of Invaders from Arab peninsula. Period.
            You can claim whatever you like about cultural diversity and whatever else – it’s really of no interest. Your leaders obviously knew what they were writing.

            You are what you are – Palestinian Arabs. Quit pretending that you have some distinct culture or history.

            Arabs are semites. So what?

            FYI It’s both Al Masri and Al Misri.

            “The question remains , what brought Askenazi thieves to Palestine ?”

            And the answer remains as well – Arab thieves who invaded Syria Palestina few hundred years ago should not be asking such questions.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            1)The indigenous population refused those illegal Jewish immigrants ,and you have no right to legalize as you wish.
            2)Based on your twisted logic ,what Europeans did to the native Americans and Africans was okay since there was no countries to occupy!

            3)Ethnic cleansing was never legal or moral no matter what people used to do .
            4)According to your claims ,the vast majority of Jews who occupy Palestine today aren’t Palestinians.
            5) “Palestinians = Palestinian Arabs = Descendants of Invaders from Arab peninsula” prove it

            6)My so-called leaders never said the entire Palestinian population comes from Arabia .
            7)We do have a distinct culture , the one Israelis are desperately trying to steal .
            8)I dare you to bring me one “Al Misri” Palestinian family, I love it when ignorant people challenge me
            9)Israelis have been taught that Arabs (300 million people) come from Arabia despite their physical and cultural differences because they speak Arabic ,its like claiming all Americans come from England , as they speak English ,which is so dumb ,no offense .
            So the land was dominantly inhabited by non Jews for centuries and Zionist Jews in Europe decided to Judaize the land and establish a Jewish state ,the indigenous population refused so they massacred the population , expelled the rest and took over their land.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Palestinian,

            1 – Indigenous could’ve protested or something, however aforementioned population had no legal right to refuse anything to anyone.
            Your forefathers hardly were asking entry visas when were besieging Jerusalem.

            2 – Since the very same process happens over and over again and America and Africa are not even greatest examples – of course it’s ok.
            Anyway, you are not seem to be offended by Arab’s conquest of Jerusalem and other places.

            3 – You are truly confused. I suppose it’s lack of proper education is to blame.
            In Germany in 1941 it was perfectly legal to burn Jews in furnaces.

            Jews ethnically cleansed the real Plishtim tribes by the order of G-d himself.

            Examples are numerous.

            4 – No, vast majority of Jews who reside in Israel are not Palestinian Arabs.

            5 – I don’t have to prove anything – it’s written it you people’s charter. Do you need help finding it?

            6)Your so-called leaders said that Palestinian is only Arab who lived in Palestine until 1947.

            They basically have stolen ancient Roman name and turned it into name for a nation which never existed before. Pretty much like Israelis did.

            7 – I’m truly sorry to disappoint you but Palestinian Arabs are quite indistinguishable from Egypt Arabs, Jordanian Arabs or Lebanese Arabs, and so is the Palestinian culture.

            Indeed, you have no language (dialects within Palestinian wary from area to area), hardly any literature, food is the same, music as well…

            8 – http://bit.ly/RqIG2j

            9 – You ever heard about the Arab League? I think you should just go there and tell them that they are not Arabs.

            “So the land was dominantly inhabited by non Jews for centuries and Zionist Jews in Europe decided to Judaize the land and establish a Jewish state ,the indigenous population refused so they massacred the population , expelled the rest and took over their land.”

            More or less correct, although you’ve conveniently missed few important points:
            1 – Jews throughout the history were oppressed by hostile Arab invaders in their own country.
            2 – The indigenous population had no legal rights to decide who is to come and who is not.
            3 – The indigenous population (IP hereinafter) actively supported Hitler’s final resolution
            4 – The IP declined any chance for peaceful resolution multiple times.
            5 – Hardly there were any “their” land to take…

            By the definition of PLO “Palestinians” as “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether in Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian”

            Palestinians are Arabs > Arabs were not legal lords of the land but mere conquerors > Conquerors could have no legal rights to the land > Palestinians have no legal rights to the land

            Simple, huh?

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            1)They did protest but the British wouldn’t listen.If the indigenous population had no right to reject then who did ? their occupiers

            2)So as long as people commit crimes repeatedly its okay to commit the same crimes ? again twisted logic

            3 You are justifying ethnic cleansing ,I think its your lack of morality ,which is common among Zionists.

            4) Show me the charter that states the entire Palestinian population comes from Arabia .

            5)Where did my so-called leaders say that a Palestinian is only an Arab who lived in Palestine until 1947.

            6) We do have a lot in common with other Arabs but we have our own unique culture ,ignorance isn’t a bliss .The Palestinian dialect differs completely from the Egyptian , Moroccoan , Khaliji and Irqai dialects. We have our own Palestinian dishes (the ones your so-called people are trying to steal ) music and literature .Here educate your Zionist brain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myvobIkwkNM

            7)The indigenous population had the full right to decide who is to come and who is not,they didn’t support Hitler (and we will go through Al Huessini’s visit to Germany) and owned the majority of land excluding Al Naqab.

            8)Whats the part you don’t like in the PLO’s definition ? that it doesn’t include the illegal Jewish immigrants ?

            9)Palestinians are Arabs, culturally and linguistically,but it doesn’t mean they come from the Arabian peninsula ,although some of them might have Arabian ancestors .

            So back to the question , what brought illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine ?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Palestinian

            1) Descendants of illegal Arab invaders have no right to protest.

            2) Crime is defined by law. There was international law which would ban Jews from coming to Palestine

            3) What is wrong with getting own lands back?

            4) When PLO first time came up with the definition of “Palestinians” that’s what it said, I’m sure you are not banned on Google.

            5) In the aforementioned charter.

            6) Dude, there is at least 3 dialects in Palestine: Northern, Jaffa and Hebron.

            Completely? ROFL. It’s exactly the same Arabic.

            BTW, speaking DIALECT of the language is anything but definition of culture.

            What Palestinian dishes? I dare you to name 3 unique.

            Literature? Music? 5 books and 10 melodies do not make a distinct culture.

            Youtube video is interesting, however is totally irrelevant: Enough Palestinian Arabs still live in their homes and have their family belongings intact.
            The truth is that there was no culture to steal – Arab music and literature does not really worth much.

            7) By what law descendants of invaders have a right to decide who is to come and who is not?

            By what law did they owned any land?

            8)I love PLO definition. It clearly explains that Palestinians are Palestinian Arabs.

            9)It does not matter where from did they ancestors came. What does matter is who they decided they are.

            Until 1967 anyone who resided in Palestine – Arabs, Jews, Circassians and other minorities – were, for obvious reasons, called Palestinians, yet it never was a name for nation – ever since Roman invaders wiped Judaea off their maps and changed it to Syria Palaestina.

            >So back to the question , what brought illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine ?

            If Jewish immigrants were illegal, than Arab immigrants were illegal as well.

            However the question you are asking is rather silly and shows how little you actually understand about this issue.

            I dare you to bring here earliest internationally recognized law which disallows Jews to immigrate to Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            1. Descendants of the indigenous people have the right to protest.Descendants of illegal Jewish Russian and European immigrants have no rights to the land.

            2. Crimes have been considered crimes for thousands of years , ethnic cleansing is a crime .
            3. It was never your land
            4. Cant you help me with the charter ?

            5. Dude,do you even speak Arabic ? On what basis you claim we have three dialects ? I cant believe how ignorant people have the nerve to spread false info !
            6. Btw you brought up the dialect thing and I gave you your lesson …
            7. 3 unique Palestinian dishes: Mshakhan , Maqloobeh , Malfoof , Maftool ….ignorant .
            8. 5 books ? Jewish Zionist thieves stole thousands of books ,didn’t you watch the youtube ? don’t you want to educate yourself and become a civil person !
            9. 10 melodies ? again I blame your ignorance ,I dunno where to start from
            10. The youtube I posted talks about the books and libraries your thugs stole, but obviously you didn’t watch it .
            11. By what law did they owned any land? The Ottoman law
            12. We are Palestinians and Arabs
            13. We’ve decided to define ourselves as Palestinian Arabs ,what does that have to do with foreigners (you) occupying our land ?.
            14. Circassians were never considered Arabs or Palestinians .
            15. So back to the question , what brought illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine ?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Quotes which you exposed came as an answer to your forefathers’ despicable policies towards minorities, specifically Jews.”

            Trespasser, your ignorance is almost physically painful. The European Zionist settlers did not care about Middle Eastern Jews. There was no aim of rescuing them from persecution in the building of plantations on Petach Tikva, Rechovot, Hadera, etc. These were enterprises intended to benefit the owners — nothing more.

            Here’s a rundown on how Mideastern Jews who migrated to first aliyah plantations were treated:
            http://books.google.com/books?id=OBzoJJGUAvUC&pg=105

            There are more details in this thesis on Arthur Ruppin (Which should be read by anyone who wants to understand Labour Zionism)
            http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf

            You need to read some concrete historical research on Zionism and not make up facts as you go along.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Andrew R,

            Your arguments are as irrelevant as they could be.

            I won’t even bother to comment on your nonsense – Yemenite workers have nothing to do with Palestinian identity.

            P.S. By now it’s a tradition according to which every next generation of olim is made to face some of difficulties which previous generation had faced.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Andrew R,

            Your arguments are as irrelevant as they could be.”

            I was wondering what silly retort you’d come out with. No, my arguments were very much relevant because they rebutted an equally silly assertion you made before, that the early Zionist leaders only talked about transferring the Arabs out of concern for Mideastern Jews. They had other motives for such talk.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Andrew,
            As I’ve told earlier – your comment is irrelevant. No one ever asserted that “only talked about transferring the Arabs out of concern for Mideastern Jews.”

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Then maybe you’d care to tell me what this exchange was about:

            Palestinian: “You couldn’t handle the quotes I posted (which expose their nasty intentions) so you switched to the typical victim playing”

            Trespasser: “Quotes which you exposed came as an answer to your forefathers’ despicable policies towards minorities, specifically Jews.”

            Then my rebuttal is that Herzl et. al could have cared less about minorities in the Middle East and neither did the first aliyah planters. I wasn’t the first one to bring up Middle Eastern Jews here.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Andrew,

            Herzl surely cared about all Jews, you really should read more of his works.

            What is important whoever is three major questions:
            1 – Who are Palestinians?
            2 – By what right did they claimed that name?
            3 – Did they had right to oppose others to come to Palestine?

            1 – As Palestinian Charter claims “Palestinians” as “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether in Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian.”

            So “Palestinian” = “Palestinian Arab” henceforth.
            Fair enough.

            2 – Claiming name “Palestinians” only to Arabs is nationalistic in it’s very substance – there is more nations in Palestine.

            Toponym “Palestine” is of Roman origin as you probably know, and thought centuries was applied to everyone from this area, long before first Arabs emerged from Arabia.

            Here arises another issue – why Palestinian Arabs do have a right for independence, nation and state while Palestinian Jews have no such right?
            Because there were more Arabs than Jews?

            3 – Of course they have such right. Exactly as defendants of Palestine had back in year 70 or in 6th-7th century, or in 1099, 1187, 1516, 1917 and on many other occasions.

            What I’m basically saying is that until 1948 there were no international laws regulating immigration which means that calling Jewish immigrants to Palestine illegal is a lie.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ahmed

            A lot of bullshit is being spewed here, Sir. Jews refer to religious beliefs as the reason for their legal claim to Palestine – there were no international laws back then, thus you invaded the land (or settled if there were no people’s – which I doubt) and thus Jews are also mere conquorers.

            You are willing to dispel all morals in your arguments – I should remind you your reasoning was not much different to Hitler’s in justifying the annihilation of everything no Aryan. If you rid yourself of moral obligation, you unwittingly side with slavery and holocaust.

            “Falastina” existed at the time of Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judea – the warring Kingdoms whose people’s were at different times in history protected by modern Iranians and Syrians while being attacked by the various Christian kingdoms and empires of the time. In fact, the Falastinas served as a final refuge as the Israelite and Judean empires crumbled – they were empires like any other which engaged in wars with people’s and faded throughout time. You insistence that there is no difference betwee all Jews beggars belief and the conviction of most Jews – refer to Israeli domestic racism. Jews are not a race – you only need to have one functioning eye to spot that.

            International law, which has existed since 1948, dictates the boundaries of Palestine post-partition. Less than 20% of that land is now under Palestinian control (theoretical control, that is, as West Bank is still occupied).

            International law today dictates you cannot exploit resources and build settlements on (internationally and legally recognised) occupied Palestinian land but Israel continue to do so. So what are illegal European Jews doing in what is left of the West Bank?

            Reply to Comment
          • Steve

            LOL
            I know! Palestinian propaganda is soooo pervasive. Apparently Palestinians own nearly ALL western media outlets and have being lying to Europeans through these media outlets for over 60 yrs. The only 1 that isn’t owned by a Palestinian is Rupert Murdocks company. And I hear he’s a hardcore Palestinian supporter (donates millions to them every year apparently). It all started way back when they told the world Palestine was a ‘land without a people for a people without a land’ & it hasn’t stopped since. They even have a name for it ‘hasbara’ (whoops I mean Palsbara).

            Reply to Comment
          • @Palestinian (whatever that is), yes of course it does. We learned to play the same dirty games as you do. We learned from the Pallywood Propaganda Machine.

            Reply to Comment
        • Very well put! The Arabs are just a sweet, honest bunch, worthy of constant praise by a lefty like the self-hating, guilt-ridden person who created this page.

          Reply to Comment
    2. Robert

      Emailed Reuter and asked them to see if there´s copyright infringement as well

      Reply to Comment
    3. Ethan

      I’m more curious where their numbers are coming from… how many settlers have thrown firebombs at Palestinians in the past 10 months in “Judea and Samaria”

      Reply to Comment
      • dani.a

        The settlers are thieves who steal Palestinians land,they make pogroms,unroot olive trees,and are protected by IDF and by all Israeli governments.A settler who killed an Palestinian who came in his farm to steal was acquit by Israel “justice” which allow the stealing of Palestinian lands.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Faith and/or bad faith.
      Be they either incompetent or crooks, it seems it doesn’t matter to the hasbara fans. Lucky them!

      Reply to Comment
    5. rsgengland

      The picture used by the Palestinian UN worker was of a badly injured child in her fathers arms , after being injured in a car accident .
      The Palestinian claimed the child was injured in an Israeli air attack .
      The foreign media took her bait and published a lie ,to show Israel in an ugly light .
      The pictures the IDF used were in the right context , even if they were of other things .

      Reply to Comment
      • No one doubts such conducts are generally counterproductive for one’s cause. Yet there’s no reason for Palestinians to publish a hoax, when there’s plenty of reality and evidence of what they are suffering.

        Reply to Comment
      • RichardL

        Are you suggesting that the IDF was wrongly accused? Because if so I can find you pictures of blackened infants that were incinerated with white phosphorus during Cast Lead. Or the video of the person killed by a DIME bomb that was dismembered so badly that the Red Crescent used two stretchers to cart away the bits. There is also video footage of the victims of nerve gas writhing around on their hospital beds. One does not need to lie. The truth of what is being done right now in Gaza by Israeli weaponry is far, far worse than any Palestinian reprisal. Don’t ever try to kid yourself on that.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          Richard,
          >There is also video footage of the victims of nerve gas writhing around on their hospital beds. One does not need to lie.

          Claim that Israel has ever used nerve gas is a lie. Repeating it makes you liar. Just FYI.

          >The truth of what is being done right now in Gaza by Israeli weaponry is far, far worse than any Palestinian reprisal.

          The truth is that you are only worried that there is more Palestinian casualties than Israeli.
          Should the situation be reversed it won’t bother you much.

          Reply to Comment
          • RichardL

            http://vimeo.com/23503221 (29 min – 37 min)
            http://www.mediamonitors.net/jamesbrooks2.html

            So don’t slink off this time; have the integrity to apologise for your bilious libel. And be honest to yourself for once by admitting that Israel is capable of and is guilty of this vile crime against humanity.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Richard,

            I’ve seen these documents earlier.

            Even if credibility of eye-witnesses is not asked (although it should be because there are inconsistencies in their testimonies, there is almost no documents and no video documents of victims) there is just one tiny bit of proof missing: actual canister with gas traces.

            It would certainly finish off the apatheid stated. But it’s just not there, although at least 8 such grenades were fired.

            Note that I’m not denying that people in Gaza were subjected to some kind of hazardous chemicals – I merely point that there is no proof that Israel has ever used such weapons.

            Now, given the possibility of failure and price of international uproar (JOOZ USED POISON GAZZZ) I totally dismiss the very possibility of it.
            There is absolutely nothing to gain by the use of such weapons, and the price is really a bit high to pay.

            What’s really interesting is whether people in Gaza were indeed subjected to nervous gas (there should be MUCH more video than mere 3-4 minutes, but it’s probably in the same continuum with gas canisters) and if they were (which is still quite possible) than who is responsible?

            Theoretically any Palestinian fraction could do that. You don’t think they are uneducated barbarians, do you?
            Of course it was not intentional – but chemical weapons are a devil to handle.

            It’s really not a problem to brew something nasty in an improvised lab, however it takes a certain degree of technology – way beyond Qassam – to create a projectile and deliver it to the target.

            It’s so easy to put a blame, isn’t it?

            Reply to Comment
          • RichardL

            Did you graduate from the David Irving school of analysis by any chance?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Never heard of him.

            But why are you changing the issue?

            Reply to Comment
    6. idf_sergeant

      There is such a thing as “illustrative” graphics.
      Stock photos and such.

      Nothing wrong about this.

      Reply to Comment
      • “We need something that screams ‘Arab!’ to our target audience. Masked young man brandishing weapon, dark eyes peering over mask, that’ll do, that’s pretty standard. What’s the difference between a Palestinian and a Bahraini anyway?”

        I’m more interested in how the IDF presents its stats on firebomb attacks. Occupying soldiers are always collapsed into ‘Israelis’ whenever data like this is published, as though the army is a just a picnic party that finds itself the hapless target of these vicious savages before it even has a chance to break open the lemonade.

        Reply to Comment
      • sh

        Illustrative graphics are fine for story books, but not for news *unless clearly marked*. This wasn’t.

        Reply to Comment
        • idf_sergeant

          This is just a post on a Facebook page.
          I cannot see how that can be defined as official “News” usage and in the context, it seems perfectly legitimate to use the image (so long as Reuters gave the IDF reproduction permissions).

          Reply to Comment
    7. Shame on you for living in Israel, a country that does this. Perhaps you ought to move to Gaza where you will be surrounded by the people you so enthusiastically seem to defend, and where honesty is the main course of the day. Sarc.

      You still haven’t answered my simple questions from last time: What is it you feel you are gaining by trying to expose Israel in such a way? How will this advance the situation? Are you looking for fans who hate Israel and Jews at large?

      Reply to Comment
      • Franz Fahrenheit

        Michelle, your question stems from thinking in terms of friends and enemies, as opposed to thinking in terms of universal values, justice and code of ethics of journalists. Reducing your thought to terms of friends and enemies is unfortunately very common in the middle east, and that’s what keeps the conflict ongoing. I wish more people would follow the moral and justice approach, like 972 does.

        Reply to Comment
        • Franz Fahrenheit, I mentioned nothing about “friends and enemies”, so your message has nothing to do with what I wrote.

          First take a good look at Arab ethics of journalism and then you will understand the response from Israel. When you deal with shameless reporters, you have to become more creative than they are.

          Reply to Comment
      • sh

        The purpose, just for starters, would be making people like you understand that we are not squeaky clean and blameless in the demonization game and that we should therefore be a little more circumspect about screaming antisemitism as soon as someone portrays us in a less than flattering light.

        Reply to Comment
        • @Sh, Oh boy was your message ever an eye-opener. I had no idea we are not “squeaky clean and blameless”. All this time I thought we were all angels. Sarc.

          We actually pushed out the Arabs in order to make way for the State of Israel, and it wasn’t pretty; just like what happened in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and more recently in Pakistan (1947) where Sikhs and Hindus were evicted from the area that is known today as the Islamic State of Pakistan. Do you ever hear any Hindus or Sikhs whining about being displaced. No, because they simply built a life in the Punjab instead.

          The problem with a website like this is that it only points out what Israel does wrong, and omits anything the Arabs do wrong.

          Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Do you ever hear any Hindus or Sikhs whining about being displaced. No, because they simply built a life in the Punjab instead.”

            That’s their business. Everyone has the right not to be expelled and seek restitution if they are. What someone else does has no bearing on your rights.

            “The problem with a website like this is that it only points out what Israel does wrong, and omits anything the Arabs do wrong.”

            What “the Arabs” (A racist term in itself) do wrong has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of Zionism. The intent was always to settle Palestine with European colonialists and displace the native population. No act of political violence by someone else can make Zionism right.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Andrew R

            >What “the Arabs” (A racist term in itself)
            Dude, you are so incredibly full of it.
            Arabs is a racist term now. Well, why won’t you go to Arab League and won’t tell them that they all are racist?
            Oh, I know why – because you know perfectly well that you won’t make it back in one piece.

            >do wrong has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of Zionism.
            So in your opinion Arabs have a right to conquer the Levant, while Jews have no such right.

            Smells like stinky Nazi…

            >The intent was always to settle Palestine with European colonialists and displace the native population.

            Native population hardly had any rights to this land – after all most of them are descendants of Arab conquerors.

            >No act of political violence by someone else can make Zionism right.

            I knew. Nothing could make Zionism right, right?

            P.S. No acts could make any Arabs rightful owners of this land. How about it?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Dude, you are so incredibly full of it.
            Arabs is a racist term now. Well, why won’t you go to Arab League and won’t tell them that they all are racist?
            Oh, I know why – because you know perfectly well that you won’t make it back in one piece.”

            I’m seriously starting to think you have a screw loose. Westerners go to Arab countries all the time. Many Americans and Europeans live in the Gulf kingdoms. Not that I condone doing big business with dictatorships or building your career off that business.

            And I said “the Arabs” is a racist term, especially when you demand that any particular Arab has to answer for what “the Arabs” do as if guilt is shared across a whole ethnicity.

            “So in your opinion Arabs have a right to conquer the Levant, while Jews have no such right.”

            No one has the right to conquer anything. Your logic seems to be that because the Levant was conquered by Arabs centuries ago, Jews have the right to kill and expel anyone in order to take it back.

            “Native population hardly had any rights to this land – after all most of them are descendants of Arab conquerors.”

            Even if that were the case, two wrongs don’t make a right. Of course, that’s not the case anyway. People were conquered by the Arabian dynasties and adopted Arabic under their rule (Although Arabic was spoken among some Palestinians before the Umayyad conquest). The Palestinians who were expelled in 1948 were most certainly descended from people who predated the Arabian conquest.

            In any case, the Zionist conquest of 1948 was an attack on innocent civilians with the intent to deport them by force. The Palestinian refugees had no moral responsibility for any persecution of Jews and the attack on them was not justified in any way.

            Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        As opposed to the Israeli apologists who want to quash the truth about Israeli crimes so the world will be gulled into believing the lie about it being the “light unto the nations.”

        Reply to Comment
    8. daniel

      How many times has this site exposed the hoaxes produced by the Paliwood propaganda industry that lies through its teeth?
      The image may be wrong, but is there an argument about the fact of firebombs being thrown?

      Reply to Comment
      • Um, yes, there is. Especialy since it’s been revealed that “camouflaged” infiltrators (“mista’arvim”) at the protests often throw rocks and molotov themselves in order to give the army an excuse to start shooting (this is not theory. This is legal fact, from testimony by officers in court).

        Reply to Comment
    9. Bin Ali

      These traitors who are given everything by the government of Bahrain but still are brainwashed by mullas of Iran who is financing these groups to ruin Bahrain’s image and publish false stories of massacres and brutal government
      The government has all the evidence that these groups are linked with the devil group hizbollah but still patient with them
      If these people did something like that in Iran they would have be hanged the same time
      I say this not because I’m paid but I’m a honest citizen of this lovely island called Bahrain
      All I wish from the Bahraini Government is just to implement the law for everyone who’s involved in terrorist activities

      Reply to Comment
    10. @ Andrew R: Calling an Arab an Arab is racist? Then what do you call them? What do you call black people or oriental people? Absolutely silly and childish!

      Whether you live in the Americas or Europe, you ought to take everything you wrote and apply it to yourself. I am certain you would fit the bill perfectly. That last thing you can afford to do is lecture Israelis on taking over other people’s land. That would be like the head of organised crime lecturing a petty thief about the immoral nature of his ways. Don’t think you can clear yourself of the wrong you’ve done by trying to wipe your soiled past on Israel. We are not your doormat.

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        A phrase like “the Arabs do wrong is racist” just as “the Jews do wrong” would be.

        Also, while you are right that other colonial-settler states are no better than Israel, you need their help in stealing Palestinian land. This is why activists need to advocate for boycotting Israel. If you’re so certain you don’t need input from outsiders, terminating economic and military links with Israel shouldn’t be a problem for you.

        “Don’t think you can clear yourself of the wrong you’ve done by trying to wipe your soiled past on Israel. We are not your doormat.”

        This is flat-out stupid anyway, because in calling out Israel as a colonial-settler state I’m not trying to exonerate the US (Or Aus, NZ, etc.).

        Reply to Comment
        • @Andrew R: You’re telling me what the Israelis do wrong. According to your logic, I guess that makes you a racist then.

          There was never in history an independent country called Palestine, and therefore there was nothing to steal, and you know it. So stop pretending like you don’t know this basic history.

          Israel has nothing to do with colonialism since we can produce both historic and archaeological evidence that there has been constant Jewish life in Israel for the past 2000 years. That is why it is called the reestablishment of Israel.

          I’m glad you saw my point about your soiled past, because the truth obviously irritated you. You are no better than we are. Actually, you are much worse; you are the colonialists because you had absolutely no historical or religious ties to the countries you colonised, and therefore, you are in no position to point a finger.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ahmed

            In fact, the word Filistinem is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The people’s of Filistinem were there from 14-12 century BC. Jewish religious text does not identify that nation as a people to be displaced by Jews (although another 10 countries ate mentioned). It’s ironic that intact Israel had displaced the very nation and people’s which were NOT mentioned by the Bible. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#section_6

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “You’re telling me what the Israelis do wrong.”

            I did not say ‘the Israelis’ anywhere and wouldn’t anyway because even that category is too loaded to use a definite article.

            Most countries that exist today were not independent a few hundred years ago, so the common refrain about Palestine never existing is a non-argument. The Palestinians and their communities existed.

            But would you have a problem with me telling Palestinians they need to make peace with Israel and accept it as a Jewish state, or for consistency’s sake am I not in a position to do that, either?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Also, it occurs to me to mention that you must really hate David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann and Moshe Dayan, since they allied themselves with the bloody colonial British.

            Reply to Comment
          • @Andrew R, as I have written before: “Israel has nothing to do with colonialism since we can produce both historic and archaeological evidence that there has been constant Jewish life in Israel for the past 2000 years. That is why it is called the reestablishment of Israel.”

            That means Jews are “Palestinians” also. My grandmother was born in Hebron in 1893 under Ottoman rule.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            You also wrote this before: “We actually pushed out the Arabs in order to make way for the State of Israel, and it wasn’t pretty; just like what happened in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and more recently in Pakistan (1947)”

            Kind of speaks for itself, really.

            Reply to Comment
          • Andrew R Yes it does speak for itself. It means we are all in the same boat, but you are trying to take a holier than thaw attitude towards Israel. As I have also written; you are in no position to point a finger. Look into your own backyard before looking in to mine. You have plenty of cleaning up to do before you can lecture Israel. We are not your doormat!

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Few points:

            1. Actually, Americans are very much in a position to lecture you. Do any of these terms ring a bell: Loan guarantees, military aid, defense contracts, joint military-exercises, security consultants, AIPAC? Israel and America share a backyard, in case you haven’t noticed.

            2. There’s no principled position behind this ‘you’re as bad as we are’ bullcrap. If you’ve told even one person America had no moral standing to fight Germany during WWII, you can bulldoze my house.

            3. What would you do if an actual American Indian or Australian Aborigine or Pakistani Hindu confronted you about Israel? Are they somehow not in a position to point fingers? Does anybody on this planet get to lecture you or have you got them all covered?

            4. Most Americans have to answer for the colonialism that oppresses the Indians to this day. However, we also have to answer for our support of Israel. No reason not to focus on both at once, your crowing how unfair it is notwithstanding.

            Reply to Comment
          • Andrew R

            1. We are not your whore. Just because Israel receives aid from the US does not give you entitlement to tell us how to run our country. Israel is your ally in the ME. Do you worry as much about what is going on in Egypt to which you give an equal sum annually.

            We do not tell you how to deal with your Mexican infiltrators, or your African Americans in Mississippi or your Native Americans who still live in reservations. That’s your backyard, not ours!

            2. I am in no position to judge on who you choose to wage war. But yes, you are no better than we are.

            3. Actually, Native Americans have visited on a couple of occasions to show their support for and solidarity with Israel. They expressed an understanding about Jews wanting to live in their own motherland.

            Many East Indians support Israel as well. We have excellent diplomatic relations with India, but we will not accept lecturing from them either. What’s your point?

            4. Who do you have to answer to about Israel? That joke of an establishment called the UN or Europeans who are also colonialists? Give me a break!

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            1. Americans have the duty to tell other Americans not to support Israel. And I’ve called my congressman about Egypt, for all the good that does.

            You don’t tell Americans how to deal with Mexican migrants because you support any action that assuages your guilt. You could try opposing both the colonialism of Israel and the US instead of making pathetic excuses.

            3. There are also American Indians who support Palestine. The point is, according to the logic other residents of colonial states are in no position to lecture you, anyone dispossessed by colonialism should be, certainly anyone who also works against US colonialism.

            4. We have to answer to the Palestinians first and foremost, and to our sense of right and wrong. Pretty clueless of you to ask this question when you acknowledge Americans have to answer to the people they colonized, albeit as a device to excuse yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Andrew R,
            You’de be surprised how many Americans and people around the world support Israel even after reading all of Israel’s violations throughout the 64 years of her existence. Including all the ethnic cleansing. bombings and massacres.

            You perceive the Arabs as Palestinians, and they perceive the Palestinians as radical Muslims who have the goal of Jihad in their veins. Many who support Israel know full well about Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria, and they support and encourage annexation of the region, whilst calling for Jordan to become the new Palestinian State, where approximately 70% of the population is so-called “Palestinian”.

            Israel did not colonise since we can produce religious, historical and archaeological evidence of constant Jewish existence in Israel for the past 2000 years. Colonialists have absolutely no ties to the country they have colonised. Your point is moot.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “You’de be surprised how many Americans and people around the world support Israel”

            Tell me something I don’t know.

            “they perceive the Palestinians as radical Muslims who have the goal of Jihad in their veins”

            Just like antisemites from the last century saw Jews as carriers of the socialist plague, some of whom supported Zionism like Kaiser Wilhelm and Winston Churchill.

            “and they support and encourage annexation of the region, whilst calling for Jordan to become the new Palestinian State, where approximately 70% of the population is so-called “Palestinian”. ”

            Because they were expelled across the river by the Zionists during 1948 and 1967. Still, fair’s fair. If the Palestinians should be forced from so-called “Israel” into Jordan, no reason not to remove all the Jews from America and send them across the ocean. No doubt all the supporters of the Zionist state will love that.

            “Israel did not colonise since we can produce religious, historical and archaeological evidence”

            And there’s scientific evidence that homo sapiens originated from Africa. Nevermind that, there’s a litany of historical evidence that the European Zionists saw their movement as colonialism. Herzl used the word when writing Cecil Rhodes and some Zionist institutions had the concept built in (JCA, Jewish Colonial Trust).

            The biggest irony in arguing that Zionism is not colonial is that the earliest olim and their leaders did not consider Middle Eastern Jews fit for aliyah. They saw Palestine as a homeland for Ashkenazim, period.

            Reply to Comment
    11. Carl Olsen

      The English-speaking countries on you list have largely addressed their past injustices, not perfectly perhaps, but honest efforts have been made and in some cases efforts still continue. That leaves Israel and Pakistan. Unless Andrew R is from Pakistan, his backyard is relatively tidy, and he has every right to be critical of Israeli policy.

      “We are not your doormat” is exactly what the Palestinian people are trying to tell Israel.

      As for arguing that Jews are Palestinians too because YOUR grandmother was born in Hebron, see if you can figure out for yourself what’s wrong with that argument. You can do it if you really try, I’m sure.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Carl Olsen,

        ““We are not your doormat” is exactly what the Palestinian people are trying to tell Israel.”
        Palestinians declined offered statehood more than once.
        Whatever they are trying to tell is really of no interest – those who choose to be outlaws should remain such.

        “As for arguing that Jews are Palestinians too because YOUR grandmother was born in Hebron, see if you can figure out for yourself what’s wrong with that argument.”

        You see, the problem is that contrary to popular belief so-called “Palestinians” have no right whatsoever to solely bear that name.

        There is nothing wrong with her argument, the only problem is brainwashed people like yourself.

        Reply to Comment
        • Carl Olsen

          Trespasser, I wouldn’t accept statehood on the terms offered, either.

          I am quite happy to call a person born in Hebron a Palestinian. A person born in Warsaw? Not so much.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Carl,

            >Trespasser, I wouldn’t accept statehood on the terms offered, either.
            And let your people rot for another 3 generations? Well, as long as they don’t mind I don’t care.

            >I am quite happy to call a person born in Hebron a Palestinian.

            But what about a Jewish person who is born in Hebron in 2012? Palestinian?
            And Jew born in Hebron in 1929?

            Who would you happily call them?

            Reply to Comment
          • Carl Olsen

            A Jew born in Hebron in 1929? A Palestinian. One born in 2012? Whatever he’s deemed to be under international law.

            Reply to Comment
    12. The Trespasser

      Ahmed

      “Thus you invaded the land (or settled if there were no people’s – which I doubt) and thus Jews are also mere conquerors.”
      True.

      “to Hitler’s in justifying the annihilation of everything no Aryan.”
      I couldn’t recall where I’ve called for annihilation of everything non-whatever.
      By the way, Hitler actually had had two plans to deal with Jews.
      1 – Deport them to Palestine
      2 – Just burn them all.

      It was only after the visit of that Palestinian sheih that Hitler have resorted to the second plan.

      “If you rid yourself of moral obligation, you unwittingly side with slavery and holocaust.”
      There are numerous other nation which are doing really fine without any moral obligations.
      I mean, stoning to death people are unmoral, right?

      ““Falastina” existed at the time of Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judea”

      “Plishtim” existed even before Israelite kingdoms, however there is no proof that modern Palestinian have anything to do with Biblical Plishtim.

      Iranians have hardly protected anyone.

      Syrians? What Syrians? Protected who against who?
      Dude, you’ve been reading Arab nationalists too much. The problem is these fellas really believe that Arab nation is the world’s greatest since the conquest of Spain.
      Not.

      “In fact, the Falastinas served as a final refuge as the Israelite and Judean empires crumbled”
      No.

      “You insistence that there is no difference between all Jews beggars belief and the conviction of most Jews – refer to Israeli domestic racism. Jews are not a race – you only need to have one functioning eye to spot that.”
      Jews are not race, therefore it does not matter whether a Jew is white, yellow or black. What’s so difficult to comprehend?

      “International law, which has existed since 1948, dictates the boundaries of Palestine post-partition.”
      True. However since Palestinians had refused statehood multiple times nothing regulates these lands.

      “International law today dictates you cannot exploit resources and build settlements on (internationally and legally recognised) occupied Palestinian land but Israel continue to do so. So what are illegal European Jews doing in what is left of the West Bank?”

      1 – There is no “occupied” Palestinian lands. Occupations requires at least two sovereign countries to be involved in the process.
      2 – We’ve been through the legality before.
      Palestinian Arabs are exactly as illegal here as Jews.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Andrew R

      “Just like antisemites from the last century saw Jews as carriers of the socialist plague, some of whom supported Zionism like Kaiser Wilhelm and Winston Churchill.”

      Not quite! The Jews in Europe did not carry out terrorist attacks around the world, and did not have terrorist infrastructures such as Hezb’Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Brigade, Al Qaeda, and Islamic Brotherhood, just to name a few. And they did not have an audience who supported these terrorists.

      I suppose this does not make them look too good.

      “Because they were expelled across the river by the Zionists during 1948 and 1967. Still, fair’s fair. If the Palestinians should be forced from so-called “Israel” into Jordan, no reason not to remove all the Jews from America and send them across the ocean. No doubt all the supporters of the Zionist state will love that.”

      As I have written before, those who support Israel also support this move regardless of how it happened.
      As a matter of fact, if you tell them that the Arabs were displaced by Israel, they would be happy about it.

      No wait, the Arabs couldn’t have possibly been displaced since we had massacred them all.

      “Israel did not colonise since we can produce religious, historical and archaeological evidence”

      “And there’s scientific evidence that homo sapiens originated from Africa. Nevermind that, there’s a litany of historical evidence that the European Zionists saw their movement as colonialism. Herzl used the word when writing Cecil Rhodes and some Zionist institutions had the concept built in (JCA, Jewish Colonial Trust).”

      There were Jews living in Israel for the entire 2000 years. I frankly don’t care what Herzl called it; it is not colonising when Jews live there.

      “The biggest irony in arguing that Zionism is not colonial is that the earliest olim and their leaders did not consider Middle Eastern Jews fit for aliyah. They saw Palestine as a homeland for Ashkenazim, period.”

      And the fact is, there are more Mizrahi Jews in Israel today then there are Ashkenazi. The largest number being from Morocco. Go figure!

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        “Not quite! The Jews in Europe did not carry out terrorist attacks around the world”

        In both cases, Jews and Muslims were scapegoats for imperialist wars. If there hadn’t been western/northern aggression against the Middle East, Hezbollah, et. al wouldn’t exist. The people who have a bad image of Muslims need to consider what their militaries have been doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so forth.

        “As a matter of fact, if you tell them that the Arabs were displaced by Israel, they would be happy about it.”

        I hardly need to be told repeatedly that Israel’s supporters are homicidal bigots, but I would be interested in hearing how they’d react to throwing Jews out of America as a tradeoff for kicking out the Palestinians. Surely they would not find that objectionable, why, that’d be hypocrisy.

        Reply to Comment
        • “In both cases, Jews and Muslims were scapegoats for imperialist wars. If there hadn’t been western/northern aggression against the Middle East, Hezbollah, et. al wouldn’t exist. The people who have a bad image of Muslims need to consider what their militaries have been doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so forth.”

          The people who support Israel couldn’t possibly care less about what excuses are brought to the table in regard to Islamic terrorism, particularly when they read about Islamic terrorist attacks carried out in countries such as The Sudan, Mali, India, Indonesia, The Philippines and Thailand, just to name a few. In what way can those attacks be associated with “imperial wars” in the year 2012?

          “I hardly need to be told repeatedly that Israel’s supporters are homicidal bigots, but I would be interested in hearing how they’d react to throwing Jews out of America as a tradeoff for kicking out the Palestinians. Surely they would not find that objectionable, why, that’d be hypocrisy.”

          This is a hypothesis that cannot be verified, but Israel would certainly be more than happy to welcome those “thrown-out Jews.” That is precisely why Israel was created. Countless French Jews are now making aliyah because of increased Islamic anti-Semitism and terrorist attacks against Jews.

          Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            We’re going in a circle here, because once again, I’m perfectly aware that supporting Israel tends to go hand-in-hand with excusing war crimes against Muslim civilians, as if a terrorist attack in the Philippines or Thailand somehow makes the USA at war with the Muslims of Iraq. And it’s very clear that supporters of Israel have no problem targeting civilians to make Palestine a Jewish state, and it’s only terrorism when Muslims target civilians.

            Israel may well take in every Jew who is expelled, but that’s beside the point. I know American Jews are not going to give up their civil rights in exchange for Israel and “Israel supporters” will not advocate military force against Jews who don’t want to leave for Israel, though they will happily use it against the Palestinians.

            There’s a reason people think Zionism is racism.

            Reply to Comment
          • “We’re going in a circle here, because once again, I’m perfectly aware that supporting Israel tends to go hand-in-hand with excusing war crimes against Muslim civiliansas if a terrorist attack in the Philippines or Thailand somehow makes the USA at war with the Muslims of Iraq. And it’s very clear that supporters of Israel have no problem targeting civilians to make Palestine a Jewish state, and it’s only terrorism when Muslims target civilians.

            The solution is quite simple; ask Hamas to stop launching rockets into south Israel, and the Israel Defence Forces will have absolutely no reason to attack anyone. Problem solved!

            Palestine was never an independent country, only a territory controlled by one empire or another.

            “and it’s only terrorism when Muslims target civilians.”

            Absolutely! You are finally getting it, since terrorist organisations are doing the targeting on innocent civilians and in turn Israel responds. What else is to be expected?

            “Israel may well take in every Jew who is expelled, but that’s beside the point.”

            No, that is the point of a Jewish State.

            “I know American Jews are not going to give up their civil rights in exchange for Israel”

            Quite a few already have—about 125,000, and the number is growing.

            “and “Israel supporters” will not advocate military force against Jews who don’t want to leave for Israel, though they will happily use it against the Palestinians.”

            This last part of your sentence need a little clarification.

            “There’s a reason people think Zionism is racism.”
            Yes, and that reason is called anti-Semitism, sugarcoated with supposed concern for the Arabs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Nas

            Let’s kill this sales-assistant-selling-underwear level of idiot circular logic around anti-Semitism once and for all.

            http://www.thenation.com/article/myth-new-anti-semitism?page=0,1

            “Nonetheless, the inference is invalid. To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people. In fact, Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another. They are separate. To say they are separate is not to say that they are never connected. But they are independent variables that can be connected in different ways.

            The history of the Zionist movement itself illustrates the point. Consider the background to the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, by which the British government committed itself to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This was a major coup for the Zionist movement. But it would be wrong to think that it was the product of pro-Jewish sentiment within the British establishment. On the contrary, British support for Zionism was spearheaded by anti-Semites within the civil and foreign service. These people believed that Jews, acting collectively, were manipulating world events from behind the scenes. Consequently, they vastly exaggerated the power and influence of the tiny Zionist movement. Balfour himself took a similar view. Moreover, some years earlier, as Prime Minister, he introduced the Aliens Bill (which became law in 1905), aimed specifically at restricting admission of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He warned Parliament at the time that the Jews “remained a people apart.”

            The Balfour Declaration was delayed by opposition. The opposition was not led by a rival anti-Semitic faction, as it were, but by Jews. Some of the most prominent members of the British Jewish community were opposed to the Zionist cause. Among them was Edwin Montagu, a member of the Cabinet. Montagu rejected what he saw as the basic premise of Zionism: that Jews constitute a separate nation. In an official memorandum in August 1917, he wrote: “I wish to place on record my view that the policy of His Majesty’s Government is anti-Semitic in result and will prove a rallying ground for anti-Semites in every country in the world.” A similar view was held by the Conjoint Committee, which joined the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association, and represented British Jewry in foreign affairs. In a long letter that ran in the May 24, 1917, edition of the London Times, the committee gave what was, in effect, a critique of mainstream Zionist ideology. Commenting on the claim that “the Jewish settlement in Palestine shall be recognized as possessing a national character in a political sense,” the committee wrote:

            It is part and parcel of a wider Zionist theory, which regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality, incapable of complete social and political identification, with the nations among whom they dwelt, and it is argued that for this homeless nationality, a political center and an always available homeland in Palestine are necessary. Against this theory the Conjoint Committee strongly and earnestly protests.
            So in 1917 anti-Semites were promoting the Balfour Declaration while a significant number of Jews opposed it. Does it follow that Zionism, in and of itself, is anti-Semitic? Of course not. But this episode does undercut the converse claim: that anti-Zionism is necessarily so.

            Why–on what grounds–do the authors under review or people of a similar cast of mind maintain this claim? Zuckerman argues, “Just as historic anti-Semitism has denied individual Jews the right to live as equal members of society, anti-Zionism would deny the collective expression of the Jewish people, the State of Israel, the right to live as an equal member of the family of nations.” This is a variation on an argument that is a staple in the “new anti-Semitism” literature. It goes like this: “Given the principle of self-determination for nations, the Jewish people have a right to their own state, like everyone else. To deny that right, especially if this means singling Jews out, is anti-Semitic.”

            This argument assumes that Jews, or the Jewish people, constitute a nation in the relevant sense, the sense in which the principle of self-determination applies. But this question is no less a burning issue today–not least for Jews themselves–than it was in 1917, when the Conjoint Committee disputed it. (It has been disputed from the beginning of political Zionism in the late nineteenth century down to the present day.) Certainly, mainstream Zionism, insofar as it had an ideology, saw itself as a national movement. But it was unlike other national movements in one crucial respect: There was no pre-existing nation, not in the modern sense of the word, where both territory and language are already in place. Traditionally, the idea of the Jewish people was centered not on a state but on a book, the Torah, and the culture (or cultures) that developed around that book.

            Within this book, it is true, there is a narrative about a people, Am Yisrael (the people of Israel) in a land, Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel) or Tzion (Zion), from which they are exiled and to which they will eventually return. But traditionally, this was regarded as a sacred story, not as a political blueprint. Mainstream Zionism set out to modernize Judaism by politicizing it, nationalizing it, turning the Jewish people into the Jewish nation, in the nineteenth-century sense of that word. The idea was to put Israel, a political entity in the here and now, at the center of Jewish identity. This was a radical departure from the “old” Jewish idea of a Jew. The concept of “new anti-Semitism,” to the extent that it is based on mainstream Zionist ideology, is just the other side of the coin, the obverse of this new idea of a Jew, the national Jew. Zuckerman and others of this cast of mind are arguing in a circle; for it is only anti-Semitic to reject his argument if you have already accepted it.”

            QED

            Reply to Comment
    14. Analysis: Behind the Mask of Anti-Zionism
      http://www.israelifrontline.com/2012/07/analysis-behind-mask-of-anti-zionism.html

      By Michelle Cohen

      Ever wonder why there are so many anti-Israel enthusiasts? It is time to analyse their true and self-serving motives.

      History is filled with occurrences where land has been conquered, and people have been displaced. Various empires and monarchies are responsible for the suffering caused during such periods in history. Here are some examples where such demographic changes took place: all of the Americas, where Native Americans have been displaced or even massacred, where land was conquered and Native American empires were “undone in a matter of years”.

      Europe sustained several demographic and geographic changes as well, and Europe changed the world. There were also many wars and conquests in Asia and Africa.

      Prior to 1947, the Islamic State of Pakistan was not always Islamic. What ever happened to all the Sikhs and Hindus who once lived in the land known today as Pakistan? They seem to have been driven out. They left with their dignity, and without uttering a sound, they established themselves in the Punjab.

      Australia and New Zealand were conquered by the British Empire. A recent documentary reveals that the Aborigines of Australia suffered a lot in the beginning of British colonialism—as well as the indigenous Māori of New Zealand—but unlike the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Aborigines of Australia and indigenous Māori of New Zealand have learned to live with the settlers.

      ● ● ●

      Since Jews had a long history of being persecuted in various geographic areas of the world, in 1947, it was generally agreed upon that Jews ought to have their own country—hence, the rebirth of Israel.

      Like most residents of other conquered lands, local Arabs did not take too well to the idea of a new Jewish State. Arabs were displaced, even by force, as many argue, and Israel conquered and took over the land. Arabs were left homeless—refugees. Their offspring are still considered refugees, even though they were born in other countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. No refugees in the world call their offspring ‘refugees’ when they are born in host countries. The Arabs are the only people to do so. If they have no citizenship in the countries in which they were born, they ought to confront their Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, and not Israel’s. Israel’s Arab population has already been absorbed and has full citizenship.

      ● ● ●

      It is damaging to persist with concealing the fact that many Arabs were forcefully driven out of the British Mandate; it only harbours animosity and contempt toward Israel. It is time to stand up, get out the skeletons from our closet and face the truth. We are guilty as charged!

      Ashkelon, once called Al-Majdal (The Tower), was an entirely Arab town. To date, there are homes and commercial buildings to prove it. As a Matter of fact, Ashkelon’s town centre is still called Migdal (Tower, in Hebrew). What ever happened to all those Arabs? They were certainly driven out and displaced. There are other towns and villages like Ashkelon from where Arabs have vacated. But what is the difference between the Arabs who were displaced, and all other peoples who suffered the same predicament throughout history? The answer is: dignity and self-worth, which the Arabs seem to lack. Other peoples have held their head high, have moved on, have accepted, or have simply adjusted to the new landowners. Those who are simply incapable of accepting or adapting are still in transition. The thought of a Jewish State amidst the Arab world is like a pebble in a shoe—the Arabs will never be comfortable with that.

      Israel won and thrived and the Arabs lost, and that is a fact that must be faced. This sort of scenario is neither new nor unusual. The only part of this chain of events that is unusual, is the Arab’s inability to reconcile and move forward.

      Israel is growing at a very fast pace, and out of a list of 185 countries, Israel is the 78th in world economy (GDP)—ahead of (among others) France, Germany and Sweden. The Arabs have only one option with which to try to destroy the Jewish State, and that is by inducing pity! Rather than to pick themselves up and establish themselves as a worthy people, the Arabs have dishonourably played the pity card for decades, and it has finally paid off. Never before has there been more sympathy and pity for the Arabs.

      There are extensive human rights violations around the world, including in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, but anti-Israel enthusiasts seem to be concerned only with the plight of the Arabs. Is it really concern for the Arabs or simple masked anti-Semitism? Why are those anti-Zionists obsessed with Israel only? The answer is quite simple!

      Today, anti-Semitism can be expressed freely by way of condemnation. Anti-Semites relish in the idea of condemning Israel for doing nothing worse than any other conquering country. The only difference is that now they can hide behind the proclamation that they only hate Israel because of the “occupation”, and not Jews at large. But is this really true, considering that the vast majority of Israelis are Jewish? It is literally impossible to separate anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism. Though anti-Semites try to conceal their true feelings, their veil is simply too transparent. Particularly when they are accused of being anti-Semitic, and they immediately pretend to be offended.

      Is there any particular reason why anti-Zionists choose to impose on Israel a higher standard of ethics than on any other country? The answer is, blatant anti-Semitism! Critics have expressed that the reason they hold Israel in contempt is because Israel is a democratic country. At least they admit to that. Wasn’t their country democratic when it colonised? Of course it was!

      Thanks to the efforts of the Arab’s continuous heavy dosage of accusations, anti-Semites can now conclude that Jews are no better than their past oppressors. Their colonial minds can now be freed from a sense of guilt, and they can point their finger at Israel and say, “You are no better than those who have persecuted you.” So, to make amends for the tribulation they have caused in countries to which they have no historic ties, or to release themselves from the guilt of knowing six million Jews were massacred, those who live in countries that colonised or have massacred Jews can now use Israel as a doormat on which they can wipe their soiled past. What a false sense of relief, since Israel did not colonise, does not occupy and does not indiscriminately massacre. Jews live in Judea and Samaria as of right, and not by occupation, as recent studies have proven. Colonialists cannot produce archaeological and historical evidence to back claims of past presence in an occupied land, as is the case with Jews in Israel.

      To conclude, even if Israel had been reestablished by war, ethnic cleansing, aggression and murder, one must face the fact that Israel is certainly not the only culprit that is guilty of such a phenomenon. Just because Israel was reestablished in 1948 and not in 1048, does not make Israel more accountable than, say the Americas that were established on Native American land.

      In order to justify their accusations, anti-Semites righteously claim that mankind is more “civilised” today than people were in those days. What a load of tosh! Reading some history books will quickly cure them of their delusion. Thus, anti-Semites ought to find another reason to hate Jews. Perhaps the allegation that Jews control Media will fit the bill, even though there are countless articles against Israel and Jews. All they have to do is read The Guardian, CNN,
      Al-Jazeera and The New York Times.

      Today’s anti-Semites think they can look squeaky clean, and simultaneously clear their conscience, by trying to lecture Israel on the effects of “colonialism” and human rights violations. This can be compared to the head of organised crime lecturing a petty thief about the devious nature of his ways. It is simply not working anymore. What was done cannot be undone, but the guilt must be shed, and Israel will continue to thrive.

      Reply to Comment
      • Nas

        Let’s kill this fashion student level of idiot circular logic around anti-Semitism is based on anti-Zionism once and for all.

        http://www.thenation.com/article/myth-new-anti-semitism?page=0,1

        “Nonetheless, the inference is invalid. To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people. In fact, Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another. They are separate. To say they are separate is not to say that they are never connected. But they are independent variables that can be connected in different ways.

        The history of the Zionist movement itself illustrates the point. Consider the background to the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, by which the British government committed itself to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This was a major coup for the Zionist movement. But it would be wrong to think that it was the product of pro-Jewish sentiment within the British establishment. On the contrary, British support for Zionism was spearheaded by anti-Semites within the civil and foreign service. These people believed that Jews, acting collectively, were manipulating world events from behind the scenes. Consequently, they vastly exaggerated the power and influence of the tiny Zionist movement. Balfour himself took a similar view. Moreover, some years earlier, as Prime Minister, he introduced the Aliens Bill (which became law in 1905), aimed specifically at restricting admission of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He warned Parliament at the time that the Jews “remained a people apart.”

        The Balfour Declaration was delayed by opposition. The opposition was not led by a rival anti-Semitic faction, as it were, but by Jews. Some of the most prominent members of the British Jewish community were opposed to the Zionist cause. Among them was Edwin Montagu, a member of the Cabinet. Montagu rejected what he saw as the basic premise of Zionism: that Jews constitute a separate nation. In an official memorandum in August 1917, he wrote: “I wish to place on record my view that the policy of His Majesty’s Government is anti-Semitic in result and will prove a rallying ground for anti-Semites in every country in the world.” A similar view was held by the Conjoint Committee, which joined the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association, and represented British Jewry in foreign affairs. In a long letter that ran in the May 24, 1917, edition of the London Times, the committee gave what was, in effect, a critique of mainstream Zionist ideology. Commenting on the claim that “the Jewish settlement in Palestine shall be recognized as possessing a national character in a political sense,” the committee wrote:

        It is part and parcel of a wider Zionist theory, which regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality, incapable of complete social and political identification, with the nations among whom they dwelt, and it is argued that for this homeless nationality, a political center and an always available homeland in Palestine are necessary. Against this theory the Conjoint Committee strongly and earnestly protests.
        So in 1917 anti-Semites were promoting the Balfour Declaration while a significant number of Jews opposed it. Does it follow that Zionism, in and of itself, is anti-Semitic? Of course not. But this episode does undercut the converse claim: that anti-Zionism is necessarily so.

        Why–on what grounds–do the authors under review or people of a similar cast of mind maintain this claim? Zuckerman argues, “Just as historic anti-Semitism has denied individual Jews the right to live as equal members of society, anti-Zionism would deny the collective expression of the Jewish people, the State of Israel, the right to live as an equal member of the family of nations.” This is a variation on an argument that is a staple in the “new anti-Semitism” literature. It goes like this: “Given the principle of self-determination for nations, the Jewish people have a right to their own state, like everyone else. To deny that right, especially if this means singling Jews out, is anti-Semitic.”

        This argument assumes that Jews, or the Jewish people, constitute a nation in the relevant sense, the sense in which the principle of self-determination applies. But this question is no less a burning issue today–not least for Jews themselves–than it was in 1917, when the Conjoint Committee disputed it. (It has been disputed from the beginning of political Zionism in the late nineteenth century down to the present day.) Certainly, mainstream Zionism, insofar as it had an ideology, saw itself as a national movement. But it was unlike other national movements in one crucial respect: There was no pre-existing nation, not in the modern sense of the word, where both territory and language are already in place. Traditionally, the idea of the Jewish people was centered not on a state but on a book, the Torah, and the culture (or cultures) that developed around that book.

        Within this book, it is true, there is a narrative about a people, Am Yisrael (the people of Israel) in a land, Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel) or Tzion (Zion), from which they are exiled and to which they will eventually return. But traditionally, this was regarded as a sacred story, not as a political blueprint. Mainstream Zionism set out to modernize Judaism by politicizing it, nationalizing it, turning the Jewish people into the Jewish nation, in the nineteenth-century sense of that word. The idea was to put Israel, a political entity in the here and now, at the center of Jewish identity. This was a radical departure from the “old” Jewish idea of a Jew. The concept of “new anti-Semitism,” to the extent that it is based on mainstream Zionist ideology, is just the other side of the coin, the obverse of this new idea of a Jew, the national Jew. Zuckerman and others of this cast of mind are arguing in a circle; for it is only anti-Semitic to reject his argument if you have already accepted it.”

        QED

        Reply to Comment
        • Analysis: Behind the Mask of Anti-Zionism
          http://www.israelifrontline.com/2012/07/analysis-behind-mask-of-anti-zionism.html

          By Michelle Cohen

          Ever wonder why there are so many anti-Israel enthusiasts? It is time to analyse their true and self-serving motives.

          History is filled with occurrences where land has been conquered, and people have been displaced. Various empires and monarchies are responsible for the suffering caused during such periods in history. Here are some examples where such demographic changes took place: all of the Americas, where Native Americans have been displaced or even massacred, where land was conquered and Native American empires were “undone in a matter of years”.

          Europe sustained several demographic and geographic changes as well, and Europe changed the world. There were also many wars and conquests in Asia and Africa.

          Prior to 1947, the Islamic State of Pakistan was not always Islamic. What ever happened to all the Sikhs and Hindus who once lived in the land known today as Pakistan? They seem to have been driven out. They left with their dignity, and without uttering a sound, they established themselves in the Punjab.

          Australia and New Zealand were conquered by the British Empire. A recent documentary reveals that the Aborigines of Australia suffered a lot in the beginning of British colonialism—as well as the indigenous Māori of New Zealand—but unlike the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Aborigines of Australia and indigenous Māori of New Zealand have learned to live with the settlers.

          ● ● ●

          Since Jews had a long history of being persecuted in various geographic areas of the world, in 1947, it was generally agreed upon that Jews ought to have their own country—hence, the rebirth of Israel.

          Like most residents of other conquered lands, local Arabs did not take too well to the idea of a new Jewish State. Arabs were displaced, even by force, as many argue, and Israel conquered and took over the land. Arabs were left homeless—refugees. Their offspring are still considered refugees, even though they were born in other countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. No refugees in the world call their offspring ‘refugees’ when they are born in host countries. The Arabs are the only people to do so. If they have no citizenship in the countries in which they were born, they ought to confront their Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, and not Israel’s. Israel’s Arab population has already been absorbed and has full citizenship.

          ● ● ●

          It is damaging to persist with concealing the fact that many Arabs were forcefully driven out of the British Mandate; it only harbours animosity and contempt toward Israel. It is time to stand up, get out the skeletons from our closet and face the truth. We are guilty as charged!

          Ashkelon, once called Al-Majdal (The Tower), was an entirely Arab town. To date, there are homes and commercial buildings to prove it. As a Matter of fact, Ashkelon’s town centre is still called Migdal (Tower, in Hebrew). What ever happened to all those Arabs? They were certainly driven out and displaced. There are other towns and villages like Ashkelon from where Arabs have vacated. But what is the difference between the Arabs who were displaced, and all other peoples who suffered the same predicament throughout history? The answer is: dignity and self-worth, which the Arabs seem to lack. Other peoples have held their head high, have moved on, have accepted, or have simply adjusted to the new landowners. Those who are simply incapable of accepting or adapting are still in transition. The thought of a Jewish State amidst the Arab world is like a pebble in a shoe—the Arabs will never be comfortable with that.

          Israel won and thrived and the Arabs lost, and that is a fact that must be faced. This sort of scenario is neither new nor unusual. The only part of this chain of events that is unusual, is the Arab’s inability to reconcile and move forward.

          Israel is growing at a very fast pace, and out of a list of 185 countries, Israel is the 78th in world economy (GDP)—ahead of (among others) France, Germany and Sweden. The Arabs have only one option with which to try to destroy the Jewish State, and that is by inducing pity! Rather than to pick themselves up and establish themselves as a worthy people, the Arabs have dishonourably played the pity card for decades, and it has finally paid off. Never before has there been more sympathy and pity for the Arabs.

          There are extensive human rights violations around the world, including in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, but anti-Israel enthusiasts seem to be concerned only with the plight of the Arabs. Is it really concern for the Arabs or simple masked anti-Semitism? Why are those anti-Zionists obsessed with Israel only? The answer is quite simple!

          Today, anti-Semitism can be expressed freely by way of condemnation. Anti-Semites relish in the idea of condemning Israel for doing nothing worse than any other conquering country. The only difference is that now they can hide behind the proclamation that they only hate Israel because of the “occupation”, and not Jews at large. But is this really true, considering that the vast majority of Israelis are Jewish? It is literally impossible to separate anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism. Though anti-Semites try to conceal their true feelings, their veil is simply too transparent. Particularly when they are accused of being anti-Semitic, and they immediately pretend to be offended.

          Is there any particular reason why anti-Zionists choose to impose on Israel a higher standard of ethics than on any other country? The answer is, blatant anti-Semitism! Critics have expressed that the reason they hold Israel in contempt is because Israel is a democratic country. At least they admit to that. Wasn’t their country democratic when it colonised? Of course it was!

          Thanks to the efforts of the Arab’s continuous heavy dosage of accusations, anti-Semites can now conclude that Jews are no better than their past oppressors. Their colonial minds can now be freed from a sense of guilt, and they can point their finger at Israel and say, “You are no better than those who have persecuted you.” So, to make amends for the tribulation they have caused in countries to which they have no historic ties, or to release themselves from the guilt of knowing six million Jews were massacred, those who live in countries that colonised or have massacred Jews can now use Israel as a doormat on which they can wipe their soiled past. What a false sense of relief, since Israel did not colonise, does not occupy and does not indiscriminately massacre. Jews live in Judea and Samaria as of right, and not by occupation, as recent studies have proven. Colonialists cannot produce archaeological and historical evidence to back claims of past presence in an occupied land, as is the case with Jews in Israel.

          To conclude, even if Israel had been reestablished by war, ethnic cleansing, aggression and murder, one must face the fact that Israel is certainly not the only culprit that is guilty of such a phenomenon. Just because Israel was reestablished in 1948 and not in 1048, does not make Israel more accountable than, say the Americas that were established on Native American land.

          In order to justify their accusations, anti-Semites righteously claim that mankind is more “civilised” today than people were in those days. What a load of tosh! Reading some history books will quickly cure them of their delusion. Thus, anti-Semites ought to find another reason to hate Jews. Perhaps the allegation that Jews control Media will fit the bill, even though there are countless articles against Israel and Jews. All they have to do is read The Guardian, CNN,
          Al-Jazeera and The New York Times.

          Today’s anti-Semites think they can look squeaky clean, and simultaneously clear their conscience, by trying to lecture Israel on the effects of “colonialism” and human rights violations. This can be compared to the head of organised crime lecturing a petty thief about the devious nature of his ways. It is simply not working anymore. What was done cannot be undone, but the guilt must be shed, and Israel will continue to thrive.

          Reply to Comment
    15. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +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 empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel