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

Analysis News

WATCH: Al Jazeera takes on the segregated bus debate

Al-Jazeera’s Inside Story covers the segregated bus debate and the question of apartheid in Israel.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna is joined by Ben White, Mustafa Barghouti and Gregg Roman in what turns out to be probably the biggest shellacking of an Israeli spokesperson I have ever seen on a mainstream news network.

To be fair, Roman does say some absurd things, such as: “Actually I do know what I am talking about because I worked side by side with Palestinians for three years while I was a member of the Civil Administration in Ramallah (note: Israel’s occupation government in the territories–equivalent to a colonial administration. It is not based in Ramallah either, it’s located in the Jewish settlement of Beit El, which overlooks Ramallah)… if you look at the everyday Palestinian worker, what he wants to do is have independence, feed his family, and he wants to be able to have autonomy.”

This is actually one of the essential counters being made by Israel supporters in this general debate over buses and segregation: that Palestinian workers prefer this system because it expedites the process of working in Israel and makes their living conditions easier. However, this does not negate the accusation of segregation and apartheid. By having reduced average Palestinians to prioritize feeding their families over obtaining their human and legal rights, you have in no way relieved yourself from the obligation under international law to respect those rights.

There is much more to go into in this debate but it is worth watching if you have some time. If nothing else, there are few places you get to see this kind of debate happen. Pretty entertaining to say the least.

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

    1. The Trespasser

      A question to Omar:
      What exactly Israel was supposed to do to deal with overcrowded buses?

      Reply to Comment
      • Maybe create more buses.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          Or alternatively to stop issuing and rescind any issued work permits to Palestinians. That would have the impact of removing the overcrowding on buses coming from the territories into Israel. I am personally in favor of this option of dealing with such inhumane conditions imposed on Palestinian workers who are clearly being forced against their will to take buses into Israel.

          Reply to Comment
      • Zephon

        What an absolute obtuse and obnoxious question. That is by far the single most retarded thing you have EVER asked/said.

        What’s it like waking up with your face up your chimp ass every morning?

        Blockhead.

        Ever heard of SUBWAY stations? Rail stations? Metro stations? OR and here is an idea – MORE buses for growing populations?

        Where have you been?

        Being a native to New York and having just gotten out of the tube reading your question made me literally laugh my ass off out loud to the point of tears.

        “What exactly Israel was supposed to do to deal with overcrowded buses?”

        ^^^ MONKEY LOGIC!

        I mean it’s a good thing you aren’t in charge of ANY problem solving infrastructural projects ANYWHERE because my GOD would you screw everything over.

        I’m actually embarrassed for you now. I don’t think I have ever known of any question more obnoxiously obtuse.

        Reply to Comment
        • Oscar

          Zephon

          Just shut up already. You add no value. Do you think that abusing someone negates their argument?

          You say nothing of substance yourself. Is it because you have nothing to say?

          Reply to Comment
          • Zephon

            I had plenty to say and I said it. Don’t like it? Tough. I have zero tolerance when it comes to prejudice – ZERO. And fall into the negative ratio when it comes to individuals trying to find petty excuses for it. Settlers don’t like having to sit on buses with non-Jews? That’s a shame, it’s their problem and this just proves why there isn’t any peace and who really is against peace. Because peace means living together and the settlers and Right wingers REFUSE that. It doesn’t matter how many states there are; or who is or isn’t an Israeli Citizen – they don’t want to live with their fellow man.

            Well that’s just tough shit. They can erect an artificial island and live on it if they want to be utter xenophobes to humanity. Or they can walk, ride their bikes, or if they really want to live like Israelites – ride to work on donkeys.

            This is just them flexing their influence and testing it on the Palestinians – for now. You just watch as they start targeting women and young girls and demand ‘women only buses’ and ‘ young girls only buses’ then they’ll start going after the not Jewish enough Jews. And before you know it schools and universities will be segregated and there will be ‘women only’ side walks and dress codes.

            If they really hate life so much and can’t stand living around society then they really ought to just throw themselves off a cliff; or at least erect themselves a man made island and live on it. Because sooner or later they are going to have to accept that there is a world outside of their bubbles – and they can’t do anything about it.

            How’s that for substance? Oh right it’s not substance if it’s brutally honest.

            I half expect Palestinians and non-jews to be lynched now and be hung off trees. I wouldn’t put it past them anymore. They just keep proving me right.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Yep, you really do have nothing to say so all you can do is insult people. If you had a gram of sense you might actually be able to make a logical argument instead of demonstrating your ignorance in insults and arrogance. I love having people like you on the other side of an argument.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Leen

      You know you can tell on his expression there were moments where Roman was pretty much ‘Damn how am I suppose to justify this crap’.

      Also waaay to bring up, ‘calling it apartheid is disrespecting the people who suffered under Apartheid’. Guess he forgot the memo where people who suffered under apartheid call it as much.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Palestinan

      Where is the video/link ?

      Reply to Comment
    4. Tzutzik

      This video was classis propaganda organised to spread false information.

      1. Two speakers against one.

      2. Everytime the Israeli speaker spoke he was interrupted by one of the pro Arab speakers.

      3. The pro Arabs never countered pertinent points that the pro Israeli speaker said. The main one being that the separate bus idea was a written request from the PLO itself.

      4. A blatant example of false information being spread was Ben White. First he claimed that the housing committee law was a new law then when Roman mentioned that the law specifically includes a clause that does not permit racist motivations to be used as a means of exclusion, he said that it has been going on for decades. Really? It is a new law which has been going on for decades?

      5. To complain that non Israeli citizens who live under occupation in the West Bank, an occupation that Israel attempted to end with at least two comprehensive peace offers in the last decade, to complain that the two populations live under different laws is disingenuous to say the least. What next? Should the allies offered citizensip to all the German and Japanese population while Germany and Japan was under occupation by the various allies after WW2? A crazy idea.

      5. Context: Between 2000 and 2004, suicide bombings were a weekly event. Many on Israeli buses. Any wonder that many Israelis still remember that?

      Just a few points. But there were more issues with that video which is a blatant propaganda piece to spread a false idea. It is part of the latest Arab tactic to try and delegitimise the state of Israel. This will pass too. And the Arabs will come up with yet another tactic to try to eliminate the state of Israel..

      Reply to Comment
      • Zephon

        False this false that and ZERO substance as to why – monkey logic as usual.

        You guys are really trying to push all that constipation out – keep pushing. All it’s doing is giving the Apes a good show.

        Reply to Comment
      • Leen

        Unlike Israel, the Allied occupation of Germany was temporary and did not have a settlement/expropriation of resource element to it.
        Allied occupation ended in 1955, ten years later.

        Similarly, the Allied occupation of Japan ended in 1951, 6 years later.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “Unlike Israel, the Allied occupation of Germany was temporary and did not have a settlement/expropriation of resource element to it.
          Allied occupation ended in 1955, ten years later.”

          Have you asked yourself why Israel’s occupation hasn’t ended?

          Because unlike Germany which gave Nazism up after the disaster that they unleashed on the world. You the Palestinian people still don’t want to give up your cherished dream of ending the only Jewish state in the world.

          Germany too lost lands after WW2 and ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland. Here read about it:

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_Germany_after_World_War_II#section_3

          “The final agreements in effect compensated Poland for 187,000 km² located east of the Curzon line with 112,000 km² of former German territories. The northern part of East Prussia was eventually directly annexed by the Soviet Union and is still part of Russia.”

          “It was also decided that all Germans remaining in Poland should be expelled, to prevent any claims of minority rights. Among the provisions of the Potsdam Conference was a section that provided for the Orderly transfer of German populations.”

          Germany moved on and made peace. You guys don’t want to move on. You insist on fighting old wars.

          Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            I am aware of that. My great-grandfather was an ethnic German living in Poland. However, after Poland entered the EU, German citizens can live in Poland, should they wish to. My great grandfather has no desire to return as he made a life in Germany, but nevertheless, he regularly visited Poland.

            That’s not comparable to Palestinians, sorry.

            I merely pointed out that your comparison of Israeli occupation and settlement expansion of 1967 is not comparable to Allied occupation because first of all, it was temporary. Secondly, there were no settlement expansion or expropriation of resources, both which are the bread and butter of the Israeli occupation in 67 territories.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “I am aware of that. My great-grandfather was an ethnic German living in Poland.”

            Are you aware of this too?

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia

            “The expulsions were executed by order of local authorities, mostly by groups of armed volunteers. However in some cases it was initiated or pursued with the assistance of the regular army.[4] Several thousand died violently during the expulsion and more died from hunger and illness as a consequence”

            And there were millions of them who were expelled from various different parts of Europe.

            “However, after Poland entered the EU, German citizens can live in Poland, should they wish to. My great grandfather has no desire to return as he made a life in Germany, but nevertheless, he regularly visited Poland.”

            You don’t say. But you also don’t say that there has been nearly 70 years of formal peace which has been fully observed between Poland and Germany.

            Is that the same between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs? Of course not.

            “That’s not comparable to Palestinians, sorry.”

            No, it is much worse than the Palestinian story.

            “I merely pointed out that your comparison of Israeli occupation and settlement expansion of 1967 is not comparable to Allied occupation because first of all, it was temporary. Secondly, there were no settlement expansion or expropriation of resources, both which are the bread and butter of the Israeli occupation in 67 territories.”

            There was nothing temporary about the lands that Germany lost. Nothing temporary about the millions (not 700,000) of German refugees. Nothing temporary about the thousands of Germans who died as a consequence.

            You are right though, there was one difference. The Germans moved on with their lives. They acknowledged their own actions and accepted the consequences. The Palestinian Arabs did none of this. They still want to eliminate the one and only Jewish state in the world. That’s why the occupation continues..

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Yes, and there is actually quite a lot of debate about it that it was a form of ethnic cleansing.

            as for the debate about Poland and Germany’s formal peace. Not necessarily. As we are well aware of the Cold War happening for the better part of the 20th century. Really things only began to change a little before the fall of the Soviet Union which is when Poland and Germany began to approve their relations.

            Not comparable to the situation of the Palestinians, once more.

            Actually, ironically my great grandfather has found the Palestinian story to be more outrageous than his personal story. So I’m going to let the ethnic Germans of Poland speak on this one.

            But I have to point out, the reason why Germans didn’t make a big deal about it, the loss of land in Poland, expulsion and refugees because of the Holocaust. It kind of paled in comparison when they assumed collective responsibility for the murder of 6 million Jews and 6 million Gypsies, Homosexuals, mentally handicaps and Poles.

            My great-grandfather has said the reason why this was never made a big deal out of was because Germans had a much, much horrifying thing to deal with, namely the responsibility of the Holocaust.

            So again, it is not comparable to the Palestinian people as the people have never conducted an extermination plan of 10 million people.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            I also forgot to mention, the allied occupation of Germany and Japan for the most part adhered to the 4th Geneva Convention.

            If you insist on comparing Israel to the Allied Occupation, at least go for the whole nine yards including Geneva convention, abiding by international law, no settlements/expropriation of resources. Oh, and the fact that allies never expelled any inhabitants from the territory. T

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “I also forgot to mention, the allied occupation of Germany and Japan for the most part adhered to the 4th Geneva Convention.”

            That depends on who interprets the laws..

            Germany lost lands. Those lands were settled by non Germans. If that is your idea of adhering to the Geneva conventions, then Israel is adhering to it too.

            “If you insist on comparing Israel to the Allied Occupation, at least go for the whole nine yards including Geneva convention, abiding by international law, no settlements/expropriation of resources.”

            Really? So the German lands that Russia and Poland expropriated, from which ethnic Germans were expelled and replaced by Poles and Russians was in accordance with the Geneva conventions? Ah, ok, if you say so.

            “Oh, and the fact that allies never expelled any inhabitants from the territory”

            Really? Then sho expelled your grandfather. It is very strange debating you. One minute you acknowledge, the next minute you deny. And deny all the references that I presented too. Seeesh …

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            I said the Allies adhered to the 4th Geneva Convention, not the Soviets. For the most part, the Soviets broke every rule of the convention.

            I know pretty well what the Soviets did to Germans and Poles. No, nothing they did adhered to the 4th Geneva Convention, but the Allies did.

            The Allies ruled West Germany, which they never expelled any of their inhabitants in the next 10 years. The same cannot be said for the Soviets.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            The Soviets were part of the allies during WW2 and even a bit beyond.

            Also, the Americans, Brits and the French fully dndorsed what the Russians did. Google “The Yalta Conference”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Well, I was right. According to your link,
            ‘■The eastern expansion of the European Union (EU) which occurred on May 1, 2004 means that any German who wishes to live and work in Poland, and thus east of the Oder–Neisse rivers, may do so without requiring a permit. Some restrictions on the purchase of land and buildings will be in place for a period of a few years.’

            ‘However, German expellees and refugees are now free to visit their former homes without difficulty. ‘
            As I said, refugees and expellees are free to work, live and visit their homes in Poland. Can the same be said for Palestinians? If not, then it is not a comparable situation at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            You are right, it isn’t a comparable situation. There has been peace between Germany and Poland for 60+ years. Perhaps 60 years after peace is made between Israel and Palestine a EU-type arrangement can be reached in the region which will allow Palestinians to freely live and work in Israel, but probably with some restrictions on the purchase of land and buildings.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Actually, that’s not true. West Germany and Poland had sour relationship during the Cold War. It started to improve around the 70s with Ostopolitik. Then things started changing in 1989 and with the fall of the USSR. Their ‘peace’ is as if saying that the Americans and the Russians have had peace for 100s of years.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Germany (East or West) were at peace with Poland since 1945. Germans didn’t kill Poles since 1945 and Poles didn’t kill Germans since 1945. Which part of this is “actually, not true”???

            Even if we take 1989 as a starting point we are still talking about 15 years of excellent relations before such an agreement was signed and it was signed within the EU framework, not bilaterally.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            East and West Germany were not at peace with eachother. Relations were improved during Ostpolitik and they only got a lot better after 1991.

            Well, I hate to break it to you but you do realize until 1991, Poland was a satellite state of USSR which we all know has tried to seize Berlin and impose a blockade several times?
            But again, you are comparing two sovereign countries more or less and for better or worse have separate economies (up until 2004). The same cannot be said for palestine and Israel. A more accurate comparison would be Israel and Jordan or Egypt.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Also, no offense, but have you been awake in the last couple of decades? There has been no economic cooperation with Poland until 1991. Have you not heard of the whole USSR vs US thing? And the fact that Poland was a USSR satellite while West Germany was on the US side?

            West Germany only began cooperation with Poland in 1991, and Poland was accepted into EU in 2004.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            I might have been asleep in the past couple of decades but I do see red herrings when I see them. What does economic cooperation have to do with peace?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You are all over the place Leen. This is what you said:

            “However, after Poland entered the EU, German citizens can live in Poland, should they wish to”

            How many years was that after the war ended? ?

            Compare that to the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Has the war ended yet?

            Oh and even during the Soviet era when Germany and Poland were on opposing sides. How many Germans who did visit Poland, blew themselves up just to kill a few Poles?

            Compare that to what the Palestinians did between 2000 and 2004. They murdered and maimed thousands of Israelis. And it was in response to what? In response to the Camp David peace offer that Israel made in 2000.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            You are arguing over semantics. When I referred to the Allies, I am referring exclusively to the US, France and UK, and not necessarily the Soviets as they are in their own sphere.

            ‘How many years was that after the war ended? ?’|
            Palestine and Israel aren’t at war together either technically speaking, your point? In fact, they never were, it’s a conflict.

            But then again, you are comparing two sovereign and independent nations to an occupied country and a occupier. A better example would comparing Jordan/Egypt and Israel to Poland and Germany.

            Reply to Comment
          • Michael W.

            @Leen, how many 1000′s of Germans (E/W) and Poles died between WWII and today?

            A cold border is still peace as long as no one (or just a few) dies.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Tzutzik

      “False this false that and ZERO substance as to why – monkey logic as usual.”

      I see you still suffer from progressivistis. Take some progresstorone. It will cure you from having to repeat “your monkey logic”.

      Reply to Comment
    6. leen

      Also for the most part, the occupation of Germany and Japan occured because of being part of the axis and the population participation in the onslaught of Jews, Gypsies, poles, mentally handicapped and homosexuals, as well as expansion in other territories in both Europe and South-East Asia where Japan was hellbent on expansion.

      This is not comparable to the Palestinian situation as they have not participated in hostilities until 1969, 2 years after the occupation.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        The occupation of the West Bank occurred because Jordan entered the 1967 war on the side of Egypt and Syria and attacked Israeli forces. The Palestinians of the West Bank at the time were Jordanian citizens and served in the Jordanian armed forces. Prior to 1967 Palestinian terrorists also infiltrated Israel and carried out massacres quite often. Prior to 1947 conflict between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs was pretty common. It is convenient but historically obtuse to try to pretend that the Palestinian hostility and violence against Israel started in 1969.

        Reply to Comment
        • Leen

          I hate to tell you this, but being a ‘citizen’ doesn’t necessarily make you on equal par or responsible. Let’s remember the Shias of Iraq were citizens under Saddam’s regime but they were treated the worst… after the Kurds of course who were also citizens.

          Jordan claimed to be a representative but they were not.

          The war was conducted by Jordanians, Syrians and Egyptians, not the Palestinians. As I said for the most part, they began to engage in collective hostilities after the 1967 occupation.

          The allied occupation of Japan and germany were for two reasons. One, the Holocaust. Two, attack on Pearl Harbor. If you can find anything that the Palestinians have done on that scale to warrant a similar occupation, then please feel free to provide these examples. And no, a couple of excursions is in no way comparable tot he Holocaust.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            You argument begins with removing any and all responsibility from Palestinians from any and all previous actions. This is a convenient starting point but frankly rather tedious. The Husseinis and Arafats and PLOs and the fedayeen and the Black Septembers I suppose too then can not be considered representative of Palestinians because they were somehow not democratically elected or just I don’t know were oh so long ago so as to be outside the scope of this conversation.

            You know that the PLO was founded in 1964 and that Palestinian fedayeen would cross from both Gaza and the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 on a regular basis to ambush and kill Israelis. Also, you do know I am sure that in 1947 there was a war between Jews and Arabs as the British were departing from the mandate. Quite a few Jews were killed during that war (6,000) and the intentions of the Arabs (local and the invading Arab armies) during that war were rather explicit.

            The allied occupation of Germany had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Even before the events of the Holocaust were widely known the Allies had divided Germany between them. The occupation Japan likewise had little to do with Pearl Harbor. It was done to prevent the Soviets from invading and occupying the Japanese home islands.

            And we can certainly compare Pearl Harbor which resulted in the deaths of 2400 deaths (of whom only 60 or so were civilian) to the 6000 deaths inflicted by Arab armies and militias during the Israeli War for Independence when the Arab armies were explicitly threatening to destroy Israel and the yishuv and not just trying to temporarily knock out naval firepower with no actual intention of invasion of occupation.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “You argument begins with removing any and all responsibility from Palestinians from any and all previous actions.”

            And most arguments defending Israel on here (and elsewhere) start without acknowledging the Zionist settlers were not going to get a Jewish state without removing the Palestinians. No one even tries to fill this logical gap: they went to Palestine for that express purpose and the UN partition gave them the coastal plains and eastern Galilee with a 55-45 Jewish-Arab ratio. This wasn’t just unsatisfactory; it was unworkable.

            In other words, the Zionists are not responsible for their own violence because it’s all written off as self-defense, even though incidentally it was instrumental to getting what they were after.

            It’s very clear, regardless of who started the violence immediately after the UN partition plan, the Zionists only delayed their tihur (cleansing) operations until they built a suitable military and the British were folding. Their intentions from the start made ethnic cleansing inevitable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Stop judging everyone by your own standards Andrew.

            As I told you before, unlike any other people, including your own, the Jews returned to THEIR OWN ancestral homeland. They did not start out to conquer it by force of arms. They PURCHASED lands at exorbitant prices.

            There was room in Palestine for BOTH Jews and Arabs. The Jews agreed to share the land, the Arabs were the ones who resisted the idea of allowing the Jews to have ANY of the land. That is still their position today.

            Hamas openly admit it. Fatal, prevaricate. They formulated the “stages” strategy. Stage 1 get as many concessions from Israel as the idiots on the left are willing to bear, and then some. Stage 2, get the rest by other means, fair or foul. Mostly foul by pressuring Israel through proxies and terrorism.

            Rest assured though, Andrew, their plans won’t work. Period.

            Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “This is not comparable to the Palestinian situation as they have not participated in hostilities until 1969, 2 years after the occupation.”

        You are kidding, right? Palestinian Arabs started participating in hostilities only in 1969?

        What about the Arab revolt of the 1920s? Thousands of Jews were murdered by Palestinian Arabs in that revolt. Ever heard of the Hebron massacre of 1929?

        What about 1947, following UN resolution 181 to partition Palestine? Who rioted and murdered more Jews? My Grandmother?

        What about the Fedayeen attacks between 1948 and 1967? Who were the Fedayeen, Leen? What did they do Leen? Google it.

        Reply to Comment
    7. Nikki

      This really extends far beyond the Israeli-Palestian debate and oppression of Arabs by Israeli Jews. The truth of the matter, institutional racism in Israel is overwhelmingly prevalent and you can witness it in all facets of Israeli life, be it housing, employment, recreation or education. i was at the bar mitzvah of a young man whose father isn’t Jewish. His aunt who had travelled here from Greece asked me how did i find living in Israel as a Black person because, and i quote, she had only been off the plane 5 minutes and observed Ethiopians are treated as 2nd class citizens. So it’s much bigger than Jews against Arabs. As i said to my neighbors, how can you ever expect to have any simlitude of peace with your Arab neighbors when you practice discrimination against other Jews based on their color? Many Israeli Jews love to say if it weren’t for the Arabs Israel would be all good. Unfortunately if every Arab were to disappear tomorrow they would only be replaced by another group of people to oppress and hate.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        1) for the sake of argument, what does discrimination against Jews have to do with peace with the Arabs?

        2) Ethiopians are not treated as 2nd class citizens. They are treated as a population that just arrived in the first world from the third world. The older people do not have the education to compete or even understand what goes on around them and the younger people do not have the upbringing in their houses that would allow them to compete. This isn’t the first group to go through this experience in immigration. They will acculturate in another generation or so. In Europe there are many similar situations and I would compare the Israeli ability to take in and absorb legal immigrants against any in the world.

        3) There is a mistaken idea that many Israelis hate Arabs. We don’t. Most Israelis couldn’t care less about Arabs or Palestinians. There is not enough time in the day to even go through the motions of hating anyone with the amount of work that Israelis need to do in order to survive financially.

        4) If Israel didn’t have to spend any money on defense and we didn’t have to serve years in the army this place would be paradise in every sense.

        Reply to Comment
        • Nikki

          Either you are being willfully ignorant or disingenuous. First you write as though i am some outsider observing the situation. i’ve lived in Israel for more than 10 years now. Any judgement i’ve arrived to is based solely on my experience and encounters living in Israel. My own personal encounters with racism are not a figment of my imagination. The numerous racist comments hurled at me from Israelis are not a figment of my imagination. The harassment and abuse, both verbal and physical, my sons have endured from their classmates and children in our neighborhodd or even at the park and other places of recreation are not a figment of my imagination. i could go on and on and on but it would be futile because people such as yourself, who exist in a bubble, refuse to acknowledge that which is so blatantly obvious to all free thinking individuals. Quite ironic because in the same breath you are quick to label someone else as an anti-Semite. Oh and btw, yes life here in Israel is quite hard. We do work extremely hard, however, it seems many still find the energy to express the most vile form of hatred.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Nikki
            There are many racists in this world. Some are European, some are Jewish some are Arabs and yes, there are black racists too. Racists are racists and they are ALL disgusting.

            That said, you are wrong in your claim that all Israelis are racists. In fact you are blatantly wrong. If ALL Israelis would be racists, there would not be ANY Ethiopean Jews in Israel. After all, Israel went to a lot of trouble to bring the Ethiopean Jews to Israel. Why would racists go to all the expense and trouble to do that?

            Nikki, your duty as an Israeli is not to undermine Israel because you encountered individual racists in Israel. Even if you encountered many racists. Your duty is to get together with fellow Israelis and fight those who ARE racists.

            However, if you don’t. Agree with me, then I think that you owe it to yourself to leave the country that you seem to detest so much. Personally, I hope you won’t do that but take my above advice instead.

            Reply to Comment
          • Nikki

            No where in either of my posts did i write ALL Israelis are racist so why you would write that other than for the obvious reason of being confrontational is beyond me. Furthermore your love it or leave it viewpoint is quite narrow. Wherever i live in the world and see injustice i will speak out against it regardless of whose toes i step on. And since you do not personally know me do not presume to know what i am or am not doing. Lastly, it matters not how many Operation Moseses are carried out, the proof is in the pudding.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “No where in either of my posts did i write ALL Israelis are racist”

            I did not think my post was confrontational.. Nor was I trying to be. But this comment of yours caught my eye because it sounded like you were blaming Israeli society as a whole:

            “if every Arab were to disappear tomorrow they would only be replaced by another group of people to oppress and hate.”

            I’ll say it again, if you rile against racism, I am with you 100%. But not if you imply that that most Israelis are racist. But I am glad to hear that’s not what you meant to say..

            Reply to Comment
    8. Leen

      Is it me, or is this the first time debating with zionists about Germans in WW2 somehow no one mentioned the Holocaust was a huge factor in the events that played out?

      Seriously, I did not think I would be the one bringing up the Holocaust.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Tzutzik

      “Is it me, or is this the first time debating with zionists about Germans in WW2 somehow no one mentioned the Holocaust was a huge factor in the events that played out?

      Seriously, I did not think I would be the one bringing up the Holocaust.”

      Are you saying the Germans lost lands and their population was expelled just because of the Holocaust?

      I don’t think so. I think it was because they started the war and because of the holocaust and because of what they did to others too.

      What about the Palestinians? They started the war too. They too planned a holocaust for the Jews of Israel. They threatened to kill as many Jews as they could and expel the rest. The only difference was that they did not succeed except in a couple of places like in East Jerusalem from which they expelled ALL Jews in 1948. And in Gush Etzion where they massacred the Jewish captives in cold blood after the defenders gave themselves up.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        Oh and I forgot to add:

        Just in the 1947-48 war which the Palestinian Arabs started, 1% of the Jewish population of Palestine lost their lives. That’s equivalent to 4 million Americans losing their lives in a war. What do you think the Americans would do to an enemy like that? Don’t answer that. There would be hell to pay.

        And I won’t even mention all the terrorism that the Palestinians perpetrated against Israelis since 1948 to this very day. And all the venom and hatred that they spread against Israel and Jews in general worldwide for a century now. But Israel should treat them as if the Palestinian Arabs are just a fridndly cricket team??

        Reply to Comment
      • Leen

        When the Nazis invaded and occupied Poland, many of the German minority participated in the Nazi persecution, as well as murdering and killing many of the Poles. I am not saying every single person did so, but many have done. But naturally when ww2 the german population assumed collective responsibility for Nazism, Holocaust, and the war. Which is why this was not made a bigger deal out of. As I said, they had a much horrifying thing to deal with after WW2.

        And you comparing Palestinians to the Holocaust is atrocious for all the victims of the Holocaust.

        I guess we’ll all keep quiet about Plan D, Nakba, Irgun, Stern Gang, Lehi and Hanagah.

        Reply to Comment
    10. leen

      You know it’s bad times for pro-Israelis when they are clutching at the ’1% of the Jews were murdered by Palestinians which if compared to Americans is 4 MILLION PEOPLE
      !@!@!@’

      Yeah, and 75% of Palestinians being expelled is 225 million Americans expelled.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        But had they not started the war against the Jews they would not have had a need to flee.

        Most likely a lot of the Palestinian Arabs would have been significant monetary compensation to leave. The rest would have stayed if that would have been their preference.

        A lot of you “progressives” are jabbering about the bi-national state NOW. Had the Palestinian Arabs not chosen to go to war in 1947, the net result would have been one defacto more or less bi-national state (Israel) and one ethnically pure Palestinian Arab-Muslim state.

        That will never happen now though (the bi-national state).

        Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          “But had they not started the war against the Jews they would not have had a need to flee.”

          I’ve posted material debunking this shopworn hasbara before, namely that Deir Yassin was attacked despite bending over backwards to not join the conflict; AHC delegates were frequently turned away and there was even a firefight between the village militia and a guerrilla band over the issue of using the village as a base.

          “the net result would have been one defacto more or less bi-national state (Israel) and one ethnically pure Palestinian Arab-Muslim state.”

          First no Palestinians were expelled and they all ran away; then some were expelled only because they started a war. Now you’re arguing the Zionist movement would have been content with a more or less bi-national state after everything said in the Biltmore Program.

          When are hasbarists going to start claiming the Zionist movement didn’t want a Jewish state until the Arabs were violent, I wonder.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Now you’re arguing the Zionist movement would have been content with a more or less bi-national state”

            Please don’t tell me what I am arguing..

            The Zionists were always pragmatists. They had ideal solutions in mind. That would have involved buying out the Arabs and have a significant Jewish majority.

            But the Zionists were realists and they were willing to accept more pragmatic solutions involving even a large minority Arab population for the sake of avoiding war with the entire Arab world. But since war turned out to be unavoidable. Well then, we may as well stand our ground. The clock will NOT be turned back because all trust is gone.

            It is a matter of public record that the Jews accepted UN resolution 181 but the Palestinian Arabs did NOT. Yet you keep on pretending that it was the other way around Andrew. That is propaganda, do you understand that?

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            “The Zionists were always pragmatists. They had ideal solutions in mind.”
            They certainly did, and for Jabotinsky and Begin among many others the ideal solution was the whole of the original Palestine Mandate including the East bank of the Jordan river.
            Begin is important here because it was Irgun, the terrorist militia that Begin led, that set off bombs in crowded areas of Damascus, Jaffa and Jerusalem in December 1947, nearly six months before the Arab armies intervened in June 1948. Their bombing outrage in Haifa ion 30 December 1947 when bombs were thrown from a speeding car into a crowd of Arab workers outside the refinery triggered an Arab riot and a whole chain reaction leading to Palmach committing massacres (of 60 civilians) in Balad al-Shaykh and Hawasa the following day. Those same villages were cleared of their inhabitants in April 1948 (again before any Arab army had entered the fray) by Haganah’s Carmeli Brigade.
            Is this what you were referring to when you mentioned “pragmatic solutions”? Is this how the Zionists sought to avoid war? Or is more correct to consider this the fulfillment of the original Zionist dream to eliminate the indigenous population from the whole of Palestine in order to create a Jewish state in its place?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “Begin led, that set off bombs in crowded areas of Damascus, Jaffa and Jerusalem in December 1947″

            1947, huh? Thats when things started going bad, huh Richard? Oh and what Begin did should be looked in isolation? There were no Arab riots in response to the UN decision to partition Palestine? No Jews were murdered in those riots by Arabs, huh Richard?

            What about the Arab revolt of the 1920s? The Arabs murdered thousands of Jews. And as Tzutz mentioned, what about the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron and Tzfat?

            I guess, according to you, “progressives”, when it comes to Israel, “things all start when Israel retaliates”, right? And you can blame Palestinian Jews for what SOME Palestinian Jews say or advocate but you can excuse Palestinian Arabs for what they ACTUALLY DID.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            Let’s at least start by refraining from hyperbole, particularly since you are interested in “what they [the Arabs] ACTUALLY DID.”
            Shmuel: “What about the Arab revolt of the 1920s? The Arabs murdered thousands of Jews.”
            1920 riots according to wikipedia: Five Jews and four Arabs died in the riots. 216 Jews were injured, 18 critically, and 23 Arabs, one critically.
            1929 riots: During the week of riots from 23 to 29 August 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 198 Jews and 232 Arabs were injured.
            It’s bad enough that 137 Jews and 120 Arabs died in the combined riots without you inventing huge numbers of additional victims, to prove what point? That Jews were entitled to drive 750,000Arabs from their ancestral homes by force of arms perhaps?
            So you don’t like me starting in 1947, let’s take it back to 1919 when Weizmann told Col House, Pres Wilson’s chief deputy that Zionists were asking for”…recognition by the Great Powers of the fact that Palestine was the land of the Jews in the past and should in the future become the home of the Jews”. This follows on from July 1917 when Rothschild and Weizmann wrote to Balfour suggesting that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home for the Jewish people by means that were to be discussed (not with the Palestinian Arabs you might care to note) between the British government and the Zionist Organization.
            This is the same Weizmann who when president of Israel sent his congratulations on the Jewish resettlement of Deir Yassin within a year of perhaps 140 (Ami Isseroff’s estimate) villagers being slaughtered there by Irgun and Lehi in April 1948. That’s not to mention parading captives through Western Jerusalem, nor to mention the possibility of rape. (Dr Isseroff could not discount it.) Weizmann’s public utterances had come a long way since he assured Jews and Arabs at Jaffa in 1918 that Zionists did not intend “to deprive any native of his possession. “ (Which was the precise fear, which combined with concerns over the threat, imagined or otherwise, to the Haram al-Sharif, was what really fuelled the riots after 1920.)
            The death toll at Deir Yassin was slightly more than the number of Jews who died in the Arab riots in the 1920s you might care to note. It was also two months before the Arab armies entered the fight.
            My point Shmuel, is that this is not Israeli retaliation that concerns me, but Israeli aggression. The Zionist project set out to replace an indigenous population with a Jewish population from Europe and elsewhere. It was originally planned by devious means without any consideration for or consultation with the Arabs who had lived there for centuries, if not millennia. And the Christian Arabs, in the opinion of T.E.Lawrence, a trained archaeologist, were descendants of the Hittites who had been on that land probably since the beginning of time and certainly since before the first arrival of the Jews to this disputed land.
            The apartheid that is occurring now in the West Bank is merely the continuation of that policy which seeks to drive the Arabs out of at least the whole of Palestine, if not, as Begin desired, the entire land between the Nile and the Euphrates. No matter how you bend it, that is not Jewish victimhood, it’s not legal, it’s not moral, it’s not justice and it does not do a lot for world peace either.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            I also wanted to mention that Ahad Ha’am saw this coming since even before 1917.

            ‘We must surely learn, from both our past and present history, how careful we must be not to provoke the anger of the native people by doing them wrong, how we should be cautious in our dealings with a foreign people among whom we returned to live, to handle these people with love and respect and, needless to say, with justice and good judgment. And what do our brothers do? Exactly the opposite! They were slaves in their Diasporas, and suddenly they find themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that only a country like Turkey [the Ottoman Empire] can offer. This sudden change has planted despotic tendencies in their hearts, as always happens to former slaves ['eved ki yimlokh – when a slave becomes king – Proverbs 30:22]. They deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions. There is no one to stop the flood and put an end to this despicable and dangerous tendency. Our brothers indeed were right when they said that the Arab only respects he who exhibits bravery and courage. But when these people feel that the law is on their rival’s side and, even more so, if they are right to think their rival’s actions are unjust and oppressive, then, even if they are silent and endlessly reserved, they keep their anger in their hearts. And these people will be revengeful like no other.’

            ‘We who live abroad are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all wild desert people who, like donkeys, neither see nor understand what is happening around them. But this is a grave mistake. The Arab, like all the Semites, is sharp minded and shrewd. The Arabs, especially the urban elite, see and understand what we are doing and what we wish to do on the land, but they keep quiet and pretend not to notice anything. For now, they do not consider our actions as presenting a future danger to them. … But, if the time comes that our people’s life in Eretz Yisrael will develop to a point where we are taking their place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily.’

            Mind you, this was back in the 19th century.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            You can quibble about the exact number of Jews killed in the various Arab revolts and riots. But these are the pertinent facts.

            1. The violence was started by Palestinian Arabs way before 1947. In the 1920s, the 1930s and the 1940s.

            2. Sure, Arabs were killed too. Are you shocked? Why? Did you expect the Jews of Palestine to turn the other cheek?

            3. You can pretend that the only possible solution was a zero sum game involving either Arabs ONLY. Or Jews ONLY. But you would be clearly wrong. The fact is that there was room in historic Palestine for both a Jewish state and an Arab state. In fact, even today there is room for two states even if Israel retains the major settlement blocks.

            4. It is a matter of public record that at every turn, although Jews wanted as big a slice of the cake as possible, Jews WERE PREPARED to compromise for the sake of peace. And at every turn, it was the Arabs who rejected peace, chose violence and demanded solutions that would not allow the existence of a Jewish state on a single inch of Palestine. Even today, Hamas insist on that. And Fatah want the same thing although they have learnt to conceal that demand in the last 20 years or so. But everything that they have done during that time, including what is still in their charter, suggests that they have not given up on their objective to destroy the Jewish state.

            So Richard, you too like your friend Andrew (you are not one and the sane person are you?) can go on copying and pasting all sorts of crap that one Jewish leader or another said or did not say or what different voices advocated, and there was very vigorous debate, but it still won’t change anything that the Arabs ACTUALLY DID. And that trumps what some Jews may or may not have advocated.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            You call it quibbling when I point out your exaggeration of at least 750%. And you still don’t have enough integrity to acknowledge it.

            Arab violence was the last resort. They had been promised self-determination in Palestine by McMahon as representative of the British government in 1915. A fact admitted by Curzon in 1919. British aircraft had also dropped leaflets promising self-determination to the Arab peoples. After the war during which the civilian population had suffered enormous hardships, in a large part due to the Allied naval blockade, they found they had been duped. Instead of being independent they were now part of the British Empire for the express purpose of founding a Jewish state in Arab Palestine. Only the Americans had bothered to ask the Arabs what they wanted and the findings of the King-Crane Commission were ignored and locked up for years. Arab delegations to Jerusalem and London achieved nothing while Jews had preferential treatment within the Palestine administration. Representative government granted to Transjordan was denied to Palestine because a democratic voice for the majority would scupper the Jewish plans to turn the territory into a Jewish state “as Jewish as England is English” as Weizmann never tired of saying out of Arab earshot.

            So when the Jews were strong enough they carried out their programme, planned for years in advance, and ethnically cleansed a large part of Palestine with great brutality. Had the Americans not objected Yigal Allon would have certainly have gone on to take Gaza. By that time Samson’s Foxes already had three massacres to their credit and the Negev Brigade were not virgins at this game either. So we could reasonably have expected what became the Gaza Strip to have been violently cleared of the natives who would have to make do with hovels in the Sinai instead, if they had survived at all that is.

            Now here comes Shmuel telling me I’m “clearly wrong”: the benign Zionists didn’t mean any harm. So he ignores the evidence of apartheid presented by Mustapha Barghouti in the programme that sparked this debate and blames the evil Arabs for wanting to destroy the Jewish state. (They don’t say that of course but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good hasbara story.) How about for once you stop whining about what the Arabs “ACTUALLY DID” (more than 50 years ago) and take a good hard look at what the Jews are actually doing in March 2013? Take a look at this pathetic little state that YOU are offering, a state that diminishes daily under Jewish settlement building and has no connections between its two parts (despite a binding agreement set up under Condoleezza Rice in 2006).

            The unrest and the conflict continues because of Jewish aggression and injustices committed today, Shmuel, not because of perceived or actual Arab misdeeds in the first part of the last century.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Don’t talk to me about integrity Richard. You display none of it yourself. You keep on ignoring the fact that the Arabs were the ones who were intent on solving everything with violence and they wanted ALL of Palestine themselves and nothing for the Jews.

            Here is what one of THEIR leaders said:

            “when a journalist asked Shukairy what he would do about the Jewish problem if war came, he replied, “There’s not going to be a Jewish problem.”[164] Like Nasser, he spoke openly of “finishing Hitler’s job.”[165])”

            If you want, I too can quote many of their leaders saying more of the same.

            And just for the record, I stand by my comment. Thousands of Jews were murdered by Palestinian Arabs between 1920 and 1947. In 1948 alone about 6000 Jews died. That was 1% of the Jewish population. You can dismissis it all you like as mere trifle but those Jews died because Arab leaders displayed not the slightest inclination to share Palestine with the Jews and they were confident that they will defeat the Jews in war.

            On the other hand. I will say it again, because you keep on ignoring it. It is a matter of public record that in 1947, the Jews accepted the UN resolution to partition Palestine into two states. The Arabs formally rejected it. FACT. And facts speak for themselves.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            Your comment Shmuel was ““What about the Arab revolt of the 1920s? The Arabs murdered thousands of Jews.” So stop moving the goal posts while concurrently pontificating on integrity.

            And I will remind you that this is 2013 and not 1947. The Arabs still do not have the state that was supposed to have been established by October 1948 at the latest. Jewish settlers are constantly stealing Palestinian land and making the creation of that state impossible, that an apartheid regime (as described above by Dr Baghouti)is in place, that UNICEF has declared that IN NO OTHER COUNTRY (my emphasis) are children systematically tried by juvenile military courts and that Gaza is kept in a permanent state of poverty and deprivation by deliberate policy of the state of Israel. Stop sniveling about Jewish victimhood from more than 60 years ago and take some responsibility for the criminality of the Jewish state that you are a part of.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “And I will remind you that this is 2013 and not 1947.”

            And I remind you that you jumped into a discussion that Tzutzik had with Leen in which she claimed that the Palestinian Arabs only started their hostilities after 1967. So Tzutzik obviously could not let that one go. If you did not want to talk about 1947, you should not have jumped in. But since you did, I jumped in too. Any problems with that?

            “The Arabs still do not have the state that was supposed to have been established by October 1948 at the latest”

            Only thanks to themselves. They rejected UN resolution 181. How many times has that been said now?

            Also thanks to Jordan and Egypt who occupied the West Bank and Gaza respectively between 1948 and 1967 and could have created a Palestinian state. But what a surprise, at that stage NO ONE seemed to think it was urgent. They just kept on concentrating on trying to rub out Israel which was within the 1967 borders.

            They could also have had their state in 2000/2001 and 2008 when two Israeli prime ministers offered peace deals involving virtually 100% of the West Bank for Palestine but with Israel keeping the major settlement blocks. In 2000, the response was a violent Intifada. In 2008 there was just no response.

            “Jewish settlers are constantly stealing Palestinian land and making the creation of that state impossible,”

            I am not even dignifying that with a comment.

            “that an apartheid regime (as described above by Dr Baghouti)is in place, …”

            Apartheid? The Palestinian Arabs are meant to have their own state. But now they won’t even negotiate. So they are under occupation. You say that is apartheid? Ah … ok then, while Germany and Japan were occupied after WW2, they lived under apartheid, right? Of course not right. By the same token your polemics are not right either.

            By the way Tzutzik already had that discussion with Leen. Do you want to repeat everything that they said to each other? I am game, if you are.

            “Gaza is kept in a permanent state of poverty and deprivation by deliberate policy of the state of Israel.”

            Deliberate policy is right but not the state of Israel. Rather by the policy of Hamas who were only recently forced to stop their indiscriminate rocket fire onto Israeli civilians.

            Oh and by their own admission, Hamas is in a state of war with Israel till they reckon they will rub out Israel. So, whatever Israel lets them get is too much in my opinion. No other country would aid and abet enemies whose self declared aim is to murder and expel the population of the country that they expect help from. Israel if anything has been too generous to Hamas. I just wish that “progressives” like you should end up facing enemies like Hamas who declare your and your families lives as worthless. I would like to see how you will react. I really wish it on you from the bottom of my heart.

            “Stop sniveling about Jewish victimhood from more than 60 years ago and take some responsibility for the criminality of the Jewish state that you are a part of.”

            The only ones sniveling are the Palestinian Arabs and people like you. You constantly whine when Israel defends itself. Get used to it and pray that the Arabs won’t ever get the upper hand because there will be hell to pay if they do. Think about it.

            Oh and people like you are responsible for the protraction of this war. You help them to be even more intransigent than they are naturally inclined to be.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            The Palestinians as a national movement did not start organized hostilities until after 1967. the Fedayeen prior to 1964 were disorganized, a militia and acted outside of the jurisdication of the Palestinian representation and employed guerreilla tactics. Arab revolts are also do not constitute as an organized hostility (hence why it’s called a ‘revolt’ and not ‘resistance/offensive’), it’s the same reason why I would not put anything outside of Irgun/Hanagah/Jewish Agency as organized hostilities unless they were sponsored by the Jewish Agency or Zionist oragnizations. Furthermore if Irgun or Hanagah acted as a lone militia, it would also not constitute as an organized national program of hostilities.

            There is a very clear difference between revolts and organized offesnives/defenses in political academia. But I am sure this will fly over your head and start spouting irrelevant points for me to bite, hence why I stopped commenting but since you bring me up in my absence I felt the need to clarify.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “The Palestinians as a national movement did not start organized hostilities until after 1967. the Fedayeen prior to 1964 were disorganized, a militia and acted outside of the jurisdication of the Palestinian representation”

            I am not sure what point you are trying to make by making the distinction between organised or disorganised hostilities. Hostilities are hostilities and Israel/Jews have a right to defend themselves from those who target them. One thing is for sure, the Palestinian leadership had a policy of violence against the Jews of Palestine.

            The Arab revolts were instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem whe was the leader of the Palestinians. The massacres of Jews were instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem too.

            As for the PLO, it was formed in 1964. Here read what their policy was:

            “Conceived by the Arab states at the first Arab summit meeting, the 1964 Arab League summit (Cairo), its stated goal was the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle.”

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization#section_1

            I remind you, there was no OCCUPATION in 1964. Unless of course you consider places like Tel Aviv too as occupied territory?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “The Palestinians as a national movement did not start organized hostilities until after 1967. the Fedayeen prior to 1964 were disorganized, a militia and acted outside of the jurisdication of the Palestinian representation.”

            I am not sure what point you are trying to make by making the distinction between organised or disorganised hostilities. Hostilities are hostilities and Israel/Jews have a right to defend themselves from those who target them. One thing is for sure, the Palestinian leadership had a policy of violence against the Jews of Palestine.

            The Arab revolts were instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem whe was the leader of the Palestinians. The massacres of Jews were instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem too.

            As for the PLO, it was formed in 1964. Here read what their policy was:

            “Conceived by the Arab states at the first Arab summit meeting, the 1964 Arab League summit (Cairo), its stated goal was the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle.”

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization#section_1

            I remind you, there was no OCCUPATION in 1964. Unless of course you consider places like Tel Aviv too as occupied territory?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “They had ideal solutions in mind. That would have involved buying out the Arabs and have a significant Jewish majority.”

            That would’ve been nice. Had the Arabs taken a bribe to leave, it would have saved the Haganah and Irgun the trouble of expelling them by force. It’s really not possible to buy a model where Zionists keep immigrating and building while the Arabs do nothing and remain where they were. And equally impossible to expect enough Palestinians would vacate with compensation. So you’re stuck with a political movement whose success depends on forced removal. There’s no compromise with that.

            It’s a matter of public record that Ben-Gurion said this at Zurich in 1937: “In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab peasantry… It is important that this plan comes from the Commission and not from us… Transfer is what will make possible a comprehensive settlement
            programme. Thankfully, the Arab people have vast empty areas. Jewish
            power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale.”

            Statements like this are more characteristic of what Zionist leaders said to themselves than anything indicating willingness to accept partition with a large Arab minority.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Enough already Andrew, you want to play the attack dog and you keep on repeating your comments, copying and pasting and interpreting things in ways that suit your warped one sided outlook.

            But you made the comment below:

            “but we are responsible in the collective sense for decolonizing the United States and restoring what is possible. The past can’t be undone but the present can be stopped from becoming worse. Same for Israel/Palestine.”

            Here:

            http://972mag.com/eu-diplomats-recommend-sanctions-against-israeli-settlements/66805/

            You were asked what would you do specifically but you refused to answer that question. Are you going to answer that question now? Or are you going to evade it again?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            I argued that the Palestinians evicted following the purchase of their land had no reason to cooperate since they had a traditional right of usufruct (tasarruf). Shmuel’s response bored me into shutting up, namely the phrase starting with “I can assure you…” Ottoman law failed to protect the fellahin from Zionism for a reason, namely the capitulations. Read up on the subject.

            But since you’re that interested, here it is in a nutshell: We give back everything owed to the surviving Indians; there will have to be a massive anti-militarization movement in the bargain since our nuclear deterrent comes from uranium mining; we may have to start learning their traditional way of life.

            In the case of Israel/Palestine, it’s not too late to prevent the extermination of the native people and the colonial regime should be dismantled before that can happen.

            Given the name of the operation used to kill bin Laden, I have the feeling we’re too dickheaded to wake up and will stroll merrily on to the destruction of everything, including ourselves. But at least I said something.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “since you’re that interested, here it is in a nutshell: We give back everything owed to the surviving Indians; there will have to be a massive anti-militarization movement in the bargain since our nuclear deterrent comes from uranium mining; we may have to start learning their traditional way of life.”

            Did you try selling this idea of yours to your fellow Americans?

            “In the case of Israel/Palestine, it’s not too late to prevent the extermination of the native people and the colonial regime should be dismantled before that can happen.”

            I take it by “natives” you mean only Arabs, right? Jews whose families lived in “Palestine” for 2000 years are not natives? Israelis whose families returned to their ancestral homeland six generations ago are still not natives right?

            And of course, according to you, the lives of “non natives” have zero value, right?

            “Given the name of the operation used to kill bin Laden, I have the feeling we’re too dickheaded to wake up and will stroll merrily on to the destruction of everything, including ourselves”

            I don’t know why but somehow I have the feeling that if we listen to you we will destroy ourselves and the Arabs will dance on our graves.

            “But at least I said something.”

            You sure did to us. But let me ask you: have you conveyed your ideas about what you propose about America to your fellow Americans? If yes, what was their response?

            Oh and if they adopt your ideas and the native Indians tell you to leave their country, after you transfer all rights to them, where will you go?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Did you try selling this idea of yours to your fellow Americans?”

            The response has been mostly apathetic. However, no one in the greater region where I live would have a personal stake in the issue, a symptom of how successful the colonization was here. When the subject comes up it’s usually some faux remorse for the extermination.

            “And of course, according to you, the lives of “non natives” have zero value, right?”

            This can only turn into another permutation of the same old discussion – I quote something to show how much worth the natives’ lives had to the Zionists, you complain, repeat. I will say you can take it up with the bozos who cite the other 20th century population removals to defend the idea of Zionists doing the same. How much respect for human life does such an attitude show?

            “Oh and if they adopt your ideas and the native Indians tell you to leave their country, after you transfer all rights to them, where will you go?”

            I’m hoping they’ll realize that will cause all kinds of problems where the former settler population of the USA ends up.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Did you try selling this idea of yours to your fellow America

            The response has been mostly apathetic. However, no one in the greater region where I live would have a personal stake in the issue, a symptom of how successful the colonization was here. When the subject comes up it’s usually some faux remorse for the extermination.

            So you are just going to leave it at that? You are not going to preach to them like you preach to us?

            “And of course, according to you, the lives of “non natives” have zero value, right?”

            This can only turn into another permutation of the same old discussion – I quote something to show how much worth the natives’ lives had to the Zionists, you complain, repeat. I will say you can take it up with the bozos who cite the other 20th century population removals to defend the idea of Zionists doing the same. How much respect for human life does such an attitude show?

            OK I get it. Our lives are of no importance to you. But you want us to listen to you?

            “Oh and if they adopt your ideas and the native Indians tell you to leave their country, after you transfer all rights to them, where will you go?”

            “I’m hoping they’ll realize that will cause all kinds of problems where the former settler population of the USA ends up.”

            Hoping? I have a better idea. Do what you preach to us. Go back to where your colonial ancestors came from. Show a good example.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Of course I “preach” to people about the extermination of the American natives. Most Americans know it already. There aren’t a barrage of them arguing the forced removal of the Cherokee was legitimate self-defense like Zionists do about the nakba.

            For that matter, I’m not preaching to anyone on here – I’m arguing against the denial of the colonial nature of Zionism and that its basic aim would inevitably lead to forced removal regardless of how the Arabs reacted to it. When someone advocates or defends mass population removal, they’re in no position to complain when others look at them the same way. Golden rule and such.

            Nevertheless, I haven’t told anyone they have to leave Israel. Decolonization in principle means Israel can no longer maintain its demographic majority through gerrymandering and forced exile. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll have to suffer the same depredations that created Israel in the first place, but that’s more up to Israelis than anyone else.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Of course I “preach” to people about the extermination of the American natives.”

            You did not answer my question. I asked you whether you preach to your fellow Americans to implement this idea of yours:

            ” We give back everything owed to the surviving Indians; there will have to be a massive anti-militarization movement in the bargain since our nuclear deterrent comes from uranium mining; we may have to start learning their traditional way of life.”

            “For that matter, I’m not preaching to anyone on here – I’m arguing against the denial of the colonial nature of Zionism”

            You call it what you want. We call it reclaiming our ancestral homeland and self determination.

            “and that its basic aim would inevitably lead to forced removal”

            Some forced removal in a war that the Arabs started. That we admit to.

            “regardless of how the Arabs reacted to it.”

            You are entitled to your opinion but it ain’t necessarily the truth.

            “When someone advocates or defends mass population removal, they’re in no position to complain when others look at them the same way. Golden rule and such.”

            Who here ADVOCATED mass population removal? All you are doing is presupposing what would have happened had the Arabs not started violence. And you are using out of context quotes by people who were not even decision makers. Certainly not all by themselves. Jews nowdays have no kings, not even dictators. We make decisions based on majority rule.

            Moreover when people here quote Arab leaders making even more outrageous statements about what their plan was for the Jews, you just ignore it.

            You know what they call that, Andrew? They call that bias and double standard. So people like that have no right to pretend that they understand the golden rule.

            “Nevertheless, I haven’t told anyone they have to leave Israel.”

            That’s not what I understood from your past comments elsewhere. However I am glad that I seem to have misunderstood you.

            “Decolonization in principle means Israel can no longer maintain its demographic majority”

            That is for us to decide. So long as we perceive danger to us and our families unless we have a Jewish majority. So we will keep our Jewish majority. As for future generations? Who knows? Maybe some day, true peace and cooperation will emerge in this region and there will be room for new solutions, confederations or whatever. But right now there is no chance of that. We are not suicidal.

            … but that’s more up to Israelis than anyone else.

            You said it. It sure IS.

            Reply to Comment
    11. Tzutzik

      The Arab narrative is::

      Arabs are allowed to start wars. If they win then they are allowed to keep all their gains. In the Arab Israeli conflict that would mean that Israel would no longer exist and there would be no Jews left (except maybe a few token court Jews). Evidence? Just how many Jews were left in East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 after the combined Jordanian Palestinian army took over East Jerusalem in 1948? ANSWER: None, zip, nada, nil. Ditto in Gush Etzion. Not a single live Jew was left.

      On the other hand if Arabs lose wars, they expect everything to teturn to how things were before the Arabs initiated the war.

      And the so called “progressives” side with the Arab narrative. Any wonder that neither Arabs nor “progressives” face a bright future. More and more people, ordinary people, are waking up to their lack of reason.

      Reply to Comment
    12. XYZ

      This whole bus controversy is nothing more than a big propaganda campaign desiged to give the ‘progressives’ something to complain about. It reminds me of a piece somewhere here at 972 wrote when the Jerusalem light-rail system was opened. The “progressive” writer whined that it was terrible because it was connecting the Arab part of Jerusalem to the Jewish part and was erasing the Arab-Jewish division of the city. One of the commenters here pointed out that had the line NOT gone into eastern Jerusalem, the same writer would have said “see, this proves how racist the Israeli gov’t is by showing its neglect of the Arab part of the city”. Same here….had Israel not started this bus line, ‘progressives’ would have complained “see how badly Israel treats these Palestinian workers…it forces them to take inconvenient bus lines or to pay exhoribitant prices to private taxis for transportation to work”.
      This is yet another example of how the “progressives” who always have “human rights” on their lips really couldn’t care less about the people they claim to love and care about. All they want to do is score propaganda points.

      Reply to Comment
    13. 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