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.

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

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.

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

>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?

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.

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.

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.

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.