+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

On the Israel-apartheid analogy, yet again

The apartheid debate is no longer restricted to referencing specific South African practices. Instead, international law is increasingly becoming the guiding framework.

By Ran Greenstein

Thomas Mitchell raises an important methodological point in his article “Call it colonialism, call it occupation – just don’t call it ‘apartheid,’” which I address here. Unfortunately, in making this point he takes us through a confusing journey that obscures the issues at stake instead of clarifying them.

Take for example his notion that Fascism was a term used to refer to a specific regime in Italy from 1922 to 1945, and similar European regimes in the same period, but then it became a general term of abuse with no specific meaning. Is this really the case? No. Fascism is indeed used by the Left, not as a general term of abuse, but to refer specifically to regimes that suppress the labour movement, restrict democratic freedoms, apply authoritarian methods of political control, advocate virulent nationalism, and elevate the notion of ‘state security’ to an article of faith. We could use greater specificity here, perhaps, but this definition is far from being mere general abuse.

Or, take his notion that the Israel-South Africa alliance from the 1970s onwards was merely a “counter-alliance,” a response to being attacked by Arab and African states, part of the Non-Aligned Movement. What Mitchell neglects to tell the readers is that the multi-billion-dollar web of relations – covering everything from diamonds and riot-control equipment to nuclear weapons, making military industries and their ‘securocrats’ in both countries very rich – was a ‘response’ to a few declarations of solidarity in conferences, perhaps a dozen altogether in as many years.

But let us get back to the substance of the article. Mitchell says: “Greenstein quotes the official UN definition of apartheid: ‘any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin.’ Does he really believe that there were no instances of such in black Africa or in the Middle East, two regions infamous for ethnic power in multi-ethnic states?” The answer is simple. He is quoting the UN definition of racial discrimination, taken from the 1966 UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, rather than the definition of “the crime of Apartheid” in the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, on which I relied in my article. Many states indeed have committed general acts of racial discrimination, but very few have committed the specific acts associated with the crime of apartheid, which is the focus of our concern. How do we define that specific notion?

The Rome Statute refers to acts such as “deportation or forcible transfer of population,” and “imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law,” and “persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious … or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.” These acts constitute crimes in general, but become associated with the specific crime of apartheid when they are committed “in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime” (emphasis added).

What this means is that we do not look here at all cases of abuse and discrimination (which deserve condemnation indeed), but only at those that are committed in the context of a specific regime. The regime must be ‘institutionalized,’ that is organized as a network of inter-related laws, structures and practices; its domination must be ‘systematic,’ that is not random acts here and there, but acts carried out over a long duration with an overall goal.

Israeli Border police officers corral Palestinians as they wait to cross from Qalandiya checkpoint outside Ramallah, West Bank, into Jerusalem, July 26, 2013. (Photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Israeli Border police officers corral Palestinians as they wait to cross from Qalandiya checkpoint outside Ramallah, West Bank, into Jerusalem, July 26, 2013. (Photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

This definition, on all its components, applies clearly to the 1967 occupied territories, whose residents are subject to systematic oppression and domination on a daily basis, to the Palestinian refugees (subject to “deportation or forcible transfer of population”), and also – to a lesser extent – to Palestinian citizens of Israel (at least the 25 percent of them defined as ‘present absentees,’ forcibly deported from their homes but not their homeland, while the rest of them are subjected to minor forms of oppression).

Why use ‘apartheid’ rather than ‘settler-colonialism’ or ‘occupation?’ These terms are neither specific enough nor accurate enough. Colonialism on all its permutations is a generic term of domination from overseas, and it does not capture well a situation where two populations that regard themselves as indigenous live intermeshed within the same territory. Occupation is no longer an appropriate term. It refers to temporary military control, but Israeli rule is not temporary and not only of military nature: for all practical purposes Palestinian residents are subject to the control exercised by Israeli civil authorities which confiscate land, fund and build settlements, arm Jewish residents, protect and promote them legally, and construct infrastructure there. It is estimated that over $100 billion have been invest by the authorities on what is meant to have a permanent existence. In addition, the term ‘occupation’ refers to the 1967 territories but does not cover other aspects of the regime, which forms an integrated whole.

The one point Mitchell raises that is worthy of serious concern, is the problem of elevating terms that emerged in specific historical contexts and locations (Fascism, apartheid) into general theoretical concepts. This gives rise to methodological difficulties indeed, but these can be addressed by qualifying the argument in an appropriate manner. The more we move away from historical South African apartheid, which ended in 1994, the easier it would be to relate to it as a legal concept rather than a specific historical case.

Of course, there is a political issue to consider here: apartheid is defined as a crime, and the international community is under an obligation to fight it. This is not just a matter for academic debate – which is important in its own right. It is a matter with implications for political struggles, campaigning and mobilization. Activists have latched on to the concept because of its utility, and that is perfectly legitimate.

Finally, let us give thanks to Secretary Kerry, who facilitated – unwittingly – a new round of discussion of the issue. The current round has not repeated the cyclical arguments of the past. We are no longer restricted to debating the matter with reference to specific South African practices. Instead, international law is increasingly becoming the guiding framework. This also means undermining the authority of the usual apologists, South African liberal Jews who use their self-styled ‘expert’ position to exonerate Israel (Benjamin Pogrund, Hirsh Goodman, Richard Goldstone). And, we are beginning to overcome the barrier of the occupation and examine the Israeli regime as a whole, as an integrated but internally differentiated machinery of domination. We are making progress!

Related:
Kerry warns: Israel could become an apartheid state
State Department stumbles: If not apartheid, then what?
If this isn’t apartheid, then what is it?

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Yair Wallach

      Questions to Ran Greenstein:

      1. Is using international law going to be useful here, given that international law on Israel/Palestine is framed overwhelmingly around partition (since 1947) and occupation (since 1967)? In addition, is it the case that international law played a key role in the end of Apartheid in South Africa?

      2. Is the term Apartheid useful, beyond its (not-to-be-denied) rhetorical value, given the different nature of the struggle and the lack of agreement over an alternative vision for Israel/Palestine? See your own article here (http://972mag.com/searching-for-a-genuine-anti-apartheid-struggle-in-israelpalestine/83646/), and Raef Zreik’s article at JPS (Zreik, R., 2004. Palestine, apartheid, and the rights discourse. Journal of Palestine Studies, 34(1), pp.68–80.)

      Reply to Comment
      • Ran Greenstein

        Response to Yair Wallach (for some reason I cannot post comments directly on the site):

        (1) It would be useful, in my view, to regard international law as one possible instrument among others. At this point in time it’s probably more useful as an instrument of education and mobilisation than strictly as a legal tool. In the South African struggle, international law played a role in reinforcing the illegitimate nature of the regime and thus helping recruit people and eventually governments to the campaign against it.

        (2) The apartheid definition is useful on a practical level only if we learn from the SA example, rather than copy aspects of it superficially. The biggest difference between the two cases is the decisive role of an internal ‘organic’ mass movement (trade unions, civic movements, students, NGOs/CBOs), on the basis of which a global solidarity movement developed. Focusing on international solidarity without a solid local movement at its foundation is like putting the cart before the horses (or, if you prefer Marxist language, building an idealist superstructure without the material basis – simply impossible)

        Reply to Comment
        • Yair Wallach

          Thank you Ran for these answers. While I agree on both counts, key issues remain unresolved.

          International Law, even if used only as a educational tool in a wider campaign, is still framed in Israel/Palestine in terms that are not useful for your discussion: from the 1947 UNSCOP to the Hague ruling. Intl Law prefers to see this conflict not as Apartheid but rather as military occupation. (this is not to be taken as a statement that it is not Apartheid; rather, that the law prefers not to see it as such).

          Secondly, the lack of a strong local movement is for good reasons because of the different contours of the Palestine issue. Mainly the issue of the refugees but also the fact that it is a national – not only colonial – conflict.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ran Greenstein

            Yair, I agree with you. My point is that the legal dimension adds a potential strategy of education and mobilization, but this is not a magical formula that would resolve all problems.

            I would urge activists to learn more about the South African struggle – and other successful struggles wherever they may take place – and take whatever is useful for them in Israel/Palestine. Not to copy mechanically, and not to reject out of hand, but to adapt what works and discard what does not.

            This is the most important lesson of South Africa: the creative nature of political organization, borrowing (and ‘lending’ in turn) from India, USA, Vietnam, Algeria, and other cases to create a unique strategy suitable for local conditions.

            Reply to Comment
        • Maya M

          I profoundly disagree with what I’ve read by you. I appreciate the integrity you reveal here, when you acknowledge that there is no “organic” movement in Israel for people like you to work with. Allow me to contribute my two pennies worth from my personal experience about why this is the case, and why frankly I hope that there will be no such “organic” movement. I’m your potential audience, as an Israeli, living in Israel, left-leaning, persuaded that much of Israel’s politics regarding the Palestinians is both bad and wrong. Not going to list my “progressive credentials” here, this is not my style. My point is that when people like me read and hear what people like you – that support boycott and compare Israel to South Africa – have to say, all we find is raw resentment and spiteful propaganda. Your entire analysis of the conflict here is wrong – so wrong that, to borrow from one Karl Kraus, even the opposite of it is not true. Let me just give one hint (which you, of course, will dismiss). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one between two ethno-national groups for a piece of territory, claimed exclusively as the national homeland by both. If you want to use comparison to understand anything about the dynamics of this conflict and how to possibly resolve it there are plenty of comparable current and past examples of ethno-national conflicts over territory: Turkish-Greek, Kurdish-Arab-Turkish, German-Polish, Polish-Ukrainian, Czech-German, pretty much everywhere in the Balkans… just make your pick. You and your ilk insist on the comparison to South Africa, French Algeria and such likes in order to portray the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one between indigenous population (the Palestinians) and a foreign colonial power (Israel). But this is simply false.

          Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            …”in order to portray the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one between indigenous population (the Palestinians) and a foreign colonial power (Israel). But this is simply false.”

            Because…. why, exactly?

            In what way is it false?

            The oppressed are very clearly the indigenous popln, whereas their oppressors are indisputably indulging in colonial expansionism.

            If the shoe fits….

            Reply to Comment
    2. Apparently Ran Greenstein doesn’t feel that an organized genocide that killed 800,000 is institutionalized enough to qualify legally as apartheid, but that deporting 415 Hamas activists to Lebanon qualifies. He also doesn’t think that “settler colonialism” is a defined term. It is–it means where a country takes control of a foreign territory, especially an overseas territory and settles its own population or another population on it. “Occupation” is a legal state, much more specific and specious than the usage of apartheid. I think Greenstein’s agenda can be seen in that he criticizes people like Pogrund–author of a critically-acclaimed biography of PAC leader Robert Sobukwe–for pointing out the differences between the South African situation and the situation in Palestine, but then attacks the use of the term occupation because it isn’t temporary enough for him.

      Reply to Comment
      • Joel

        Thomas,

        If Greenstein used the ICC Rome Statute definition of the ‘crime of Apatheid’, in his earlier article, than you’ve misquoted him.
        No?

        Reply to Comment
    3. Rab

      There’s a reason Israel isn’t signatory to the Rome convention and that is that elements of it were presented and pushed by the Muslim bloc together with the non-aligned movement. And let’s not pretend that Israel wasn’t in their crosshairs. They even changed the definition of apartheid, can you imagine?!

      You may wish to read up on Soviet manipulations at the UN in the ’60s and then the Cuba-Libya partnership whose effects we continue to feel. It might make you a little more skeptical about the bodies creating international law. Here is one compelling read about it (read it and weep):

      http://www.thetower.org/article/the-deep-un-inside-the-secret-infrastructure-of-hate/

      Reply to Comment
    4. Ran Greenstein

      Thomas Mitchell, the Rwandan genocide is a crime against humanity, defined as genocide, and much worse than apartheid. Why burden an act that is condemned and punishable in its own terms, with the label ‘apartheid’? Of what theoretical or political use would such an operation be?

      Deporting 415 Hamas activists is an act of political oppression, but relatively minor compared to the permanent deportation of 750,000 Palestinian refugees in 1948.

      Is genocide worse than sending people permanently into exile? Of course. But why lump all acts of oppression under the same label?

      Occupation is indeed a legal term, indicating a state of temporary military control. As I explain in the article, the Israeli control in the 1967 territories is neither temporary, not military alone. Rather it is the (intended) permanent subordination of the territory and its Palestinian residents to Israeli domination. Defining this situation as temporary simply helps disguise the apartheid-like conditions there.

      Finally, Pogrund has written indeed on the PAC leader Sobukwe. How does this contradict his work as an apologist for Israeli apartheid is not clear.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Joel

      Ran,

      “deportation of 750,000 Palestinian refugees in 1948”

      What? Deported? Most of 550,000+ refugees fled the field same as happens in all wars. Are the Syrians in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon ‘deportees’.

      Many Palestinians were forced out at the point of a gun, but most fled a short distance to relative safety. The greater crime was the 60 years that they were left to languish in refugee camps by their hosts.

      Israel accepted Sephardic and Mizrahi refugees. The Arab States did not accept the Palestinians.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ran Greenstein

        Joel, it is deportation whether they fled or were forcibly expelled, because all of them – regardless of the circumstances of their departure – were denied re-entry and that remains the case today. Call it retroactive deportation if you will, the outcome is the same.

        Reply to Comment
        • Rab

          If you wish to use this language, and claim that international law has a say according to your definitions, then obviously you oppose the deportation of the vast majority of Jews from Arab and Muslim states in the years ’48-’62 and understand that just as Pakistan and India underwent an internationally accepted population exchange, so did Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

          Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            The Jewish Arabs werent “deported” but imported by the European colonialists as cheap labor in order to outnumber the indigenous population and solidify the Zionist narrative.Stop using their misery,which the European Zionists created,to deny us our rights ,its shameful …and it wont work !

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Ah yes, another Israeli evil. By the way, in 1949 the Arabs in Israel were outnumbered 6-1, so even your false, lame argument fails.

            As for “deported,” I was using Greenstein’s ludicrous definition. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            The Zionists were never shortsighted and always plan in advance.Despite all the Zionist policies to expel the indigenous population and import more Jewish settlers to Palestine ,today the Palestinians slightly outnumber the Jews.

            Pardonnez moi for assuming I was arguing with a well-informed person,sometimes ignorant people can fool us.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Indeed, my ignorance of this conflict knows no bounds.

            But what can you do, some of us are ignorant and others, who claim the others are ignorant, will twist the truth until it bleeds.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Palestinian.

            In a way you are lucky not to be a Jewish Semite in Israel.

            Semites ,like you, had their heads bombarded with radiation 25.000x safe levels in the 50’s(Ringworm affair-Marrocan Jews).

            Or had their children stolen and put up for adoption for sterile non-Semitic Jews or shipped to the US to disappear in nuclear experiments(Rabbi Uzi Meshulam-Missing Yemeni Children)

            Lately Ethiopen Jewish women were forced into using Depo Proveera,an anti-conceptive not used in civilized countries because of the side effect of permanent sterilization.

            After the local Semite population(Palestinians) and the Jewish Semites it’s only a matter of time untill anybody,Jews included, not buying the Ashkenazi(non-Semite,non-Jewish)narrative will be declared enemy.

            It never had anything to do with Judaism or Semitism,it’s only secular ,racist landgrabbing,ethnic cleansing and fascism.

            1897 Zionism is a desperate anti-Semitic sect,well on their way to commiting suicide.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            @ shachalnur

            Ringworm radiation was the preferred, if not standard, treatment in the West back in the day.

            Please submit proofs that Depo Proveera was ‘forced’ on Ethiopian olim.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Joel,

            You use the word “treatment”,while the “Ringworm Affair” had to do with an experiment on children that didn’t have the Ringworm.

            No radiation was ever used as a means of prevention and certainly not as a scientific study,using different doses of up to 25000x safe level, and paid for by the US Army.

            It was very controversial as a treatment in those times,as a preventive measure and on tens of thousands of children is Eugenics.

            Depo Proveera for Ethiopean Olim waiting in transition camps in Ethyiopia was not forced on women by tying them down and squirting it up their vains.

            But try;

            Telling the women if they don’t take the injection,they can’t go to Israel.

            Telling the women it was a vaccine.

            Not telling the women anything ,and just stick the needle in.

            It’s easy to find testimonies from these women in Israeli newspapers,as there are several Israeli documentairies on the consequences of the Ringworm Affair,as there are on the Missing Yemeni Children.

            But who would believe them,they are just poor Jewish Semites ,making trouble ,instead of being gratefull Zionism saved them from being devoured by Nazi’s,anti-Semites and Klingons.

            Reply to Comment
        • Joel

          Ran,

          This thread is been concerned with nomenclature.

          So, if you want to say that the refugees were retroactively deported, than feel free but please don’t say that the 750,000 refugees were deported when that wasn’t the case.

          Reply to Comment
    6. Joel,
      I quoted the language he included in his article in quotes. I’m not sure where he took it from. In I inadvertentantly miscited it, I’m sorry.

      Ran,

      Your aim is to delegitimize the state of Israel. Mine is to accurately describe the conditions. Because Benjamin Pogrund, Richard Goldstone et al. do not want to join you in your quest you label them apologists. My point is that they are well qualified, indeed, better qualified to discuss the comparative conditions than you. As far as the permanence of the Israeli occupation, this is why I compare it to Namibia under South African occupation, which is the subject of another article that 972 should publish soon.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ran Greenstein

        I have no interest in legitimizing or de-legitimizing Israel. It does that on its own. My goal is to offer an analytical framework within which to make sense of the regime’s structure and operations.

        Pogrund and Goldstone are well-qualified to talk about what living under apartheid felt like to White liberals. They are not qualified to talk about analytical issues and on Israeli politics and society with which I are not very familiar.

        Acting as apologists is something they chose: the only time you hear their voices in this context, is when they rush to defend Israel from being tainted by the label of apartheid. You are welcome to consult the following: http://www.jnews.org.uk/commentary/israel-apartheid-and-the-hasbara-machine

        Reply to Comment
        • Rab

          Thanks for the link. Reading that poorly made collection of arguments, however, left me wondering whether you are aware of the weakness of your claims.

          Seriously, your case is so weak it’s no wonder you resort to using language inaccurately (“deported”) and the “we can ignore them because it’s hasbara” claim.

          For example, one element of apartheid that Israel doesn’t share with SA and which jumped out immediately is that Israel has a majority Jewish population, even if you include Judea and Samaria and Gaza in your population figures (and even if you accept the outrageously inflated Palestinian population figures as accurate). You must realize this, which is why you seek to claim that Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Americans, Canadians and Swedes of Palestinian descent should also be permitted to vote in Israel. When you do that, then suddenly the Jews do indeed become a minority lording it over the Palestinians. In the real world, however, rhetorical games are just that.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ran Greenstein

            Israel has had a Jewish majority since 1948 because of the Nakba, and the Nakba took place precisely in order to create a Jewish majority.

            White South Africans were much more concerned with living comfortable life, which required plenty of cheap black labour. That is why they never expelled black people from the country (only deported those who were no longer useful workers to remote rural areas, to raise the next generation of workers).

            In any event, whether Israel copies all the features of South African apartheid or not is not the issue. The issue is the fit of the legal definition of apartheid contained in the Rome Statute of the ICC, which talks about an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination (the SA case is no longer relevant here)

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Israel has had a Jewish majority since 1948 because the Arabs attacked the Yishuv and then the Arab states attacked Israel in order to destroy, murder and evict the Jewish minority living on a parcel of land which international law had promised to them as a home. They lost the war and a Jewish majority was created.

            Don’t forget, as you write your revisionist history, that the majority of displaced local Arabs left or were forced out before May, 1948 when the state was declared.

            The claim about White South Africans demonstrates precisely how vacuous your argument is. Zionists aren’t in Israel because of comfortable living and never were. That you think this demonstrates a significant and fundamental misunderstanding of Israel, a country launched by people who wanted to work the land and later populated by refugees from Europe and from Arab and Muslim lands. And don’t ever forget the burden that most Jewish Israelis bear, of sending their sons, husbands, brothers, fathers (and these days women as well) off to the army, war and danger.

            And let’s be clear, when you use the word apartheid, you are specifically claiming that Israel copies most of the features of South African apartheid. The fact that Jews are a majority over the land under discussion, as pointed out because of the Arabs launching their war, means that a people who have claimed their inherent (and UN approved) right to self-determination are also using democratic means to control this land. That you, a South African academic, have to ignore your own apartheid regime while running off to the reconstituted “legal definition of apartheid contained in the Rome Statute” composed and presented by the Arab states because the previous definition doesn’t fit and the new one (composed by the very people responsible for this conflict) does, tells you all you need to know about the weakness of your claims.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ran Greenstein

            Long before 1948, no Palestinian peasants, tenants, residents, were allowed to stay on land transferred between Arabs and Jewish agencies. It has nothing to do with war. All the new Jewish settlements established since the first decade of the 20th century were Jewish-only, and excluded the local people as residents, rights-bearing neighbours, or even as workers (not always successfully). The struggle of the Zionist labour movement in particular was to make this exclusion complete through Conquest of Land and Conquest of Labour policies. All this has nothing to do with the 1948 war. It was a process of creating a zone of exclusion that culminated with the nakba

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            “Land transferred between Arabs and Jewish agencies.”

            Land was not transferred. Land was purchased. It was not purchased from agencies but from private parties. Often at astoundingly exorbitant prices, on par with real estate prices in large cities in the United States.

            When you buy land, it is yours and it is yours to do with as you please. If you buy a farm tomorrow, are you expected to permit the current owner’s renters or residents to live there? If you create a gated community (I live in the USA) and charge a fortune for houses, are the residents expected to open the gates to all comers?

            The fact is that Zionists expected, assumed and wanted a democratic state that is a Jewish state because they developed a majority within its boundaries. That is a view shared even by the progenitors of today’s right wing parties.

            “All the new Jewish settlements established since the first decade of the 20th century were Jewish-only, and excluded the local people as residents, rights-bearing neighbours, or even as workers (not always successfully).”

            You write as if there weren’t severe and critical cultural differences. In 1948, over 70% (!!!) of the Arab population was still illiterate and two thirds of them lived in villages subsisting on primitive agriculture. On the Jewish side, you had sophisticated ideologues from Europe building things such as the White City in Tel Aviv based on Bauhaus. Even the kibbutzniks were people of the quality of a Ben Gurion. And they were busy trying to make a living, trying to establish a community, trying to figure out what their society was about, trying to deal with Arab violence, trying to deal with the British Mandatory government that was backtracking on promises. Your expectations are simply ridiculous.

            “The struggle of the Zionist labour movement in particular was to make this exclusion complete through Conquest of Land and Conquest of Labour policies. All this has nothing to do with the 1948 war. It was a process of creating a zone of exclusion that culminated with the nakba.”

            Well you got the word nakba in, congratulations. However, the conquest of the land was something attempted by the Arabs. The Jews undermined your claims by agreeing to partition three times, first in 1922 when the British handed 80% of Mandatory Palestine to the Arabs, and then again in 1937 and 1947. These are basic facts. The land could have been divided, in a manner that would have left the Yishuv with about 10-11@ of Mandatory Palestine half of which was the unarable land of the Negev. The Yishuv accepted. The Arabs rejected…and attacked…twice.

            So the nakba is an Arab-made tragedy, as is the eventual outcome of leaving the Palestinians stateless in many countries up to and including today.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            The @ symbol is supposed to be a % symbol. The Jews would have ended up with 10-11% of Mandatory Palestine if the Arabs had agreed to partition, as did the Yishuv.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            If you create a gated community (I live in the USA) and charge a fortune for houses, are the residents expected to open the gates to all comers?

            It should be noted that since 1964, discrimination in housing on a racial basis has been illegal in the United States. If you tried to evict somebody from a farm because they were Arab, this argument would not fly in court. And if Zionists tried establishing kibbutzim on the same basis in the US, bringing them to court would not be much of a challenge.

            The Jews undermined your claims by agreeing to partition three times, first in 1922 when the British handed 80% of Mandatory Palestine to the Arabs, and then again in 1937 and 1947.

            When Transjordan was formally independent in 1946 and applied for UN membership, the Jewish Agency protested that it was still part of the Palestine Mandate and that its territory must be retained for development of the “Jewish National Home”.

            jpress.org.il/Repository/getimage.dll?path=PLS/1946/04/09/3/Img/Ar0030016.png

            (Replace with 17, 18 etc. to read whole article)

            Ben-Gurion wrote this gem to his son in 1937: “But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.”

            palestine-studies.org/files/B-G Letter translation.pdf

            The Jewish Agency and the JNF searched for loopholes that would give them some kind of presence in Transjordan, mainly through business contracts. The JNF even sent missions across the river to gauge the possibility of buying land.

            books.google.com/books?id=eZlPPNfRuWsC&pg=PA19

            The Zionists have always used force to alter agreements they didn’t like. Transjordan was spared their conquest only because Britain was responsible for its defense.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            “It should be noted that since 1964, discrimination in housing on a racial basis has been illegal in the United States.”

            I have good news for you, race isn’t a factor here. Also, I have great news that the period we’re discussing, that of felaheen workers, is circa 1910-1948, but thanks for letting us know that it took the US until 1964 to establish laws that you and Mr. Greenstein would have the Jewish Yishuv, representing a significant minority, accept in 1920 even as its communities are under fierce attack by the local Arabs whom they are supposed to be allowing into their impoverished, from-the-ground-up, hardscrabble communities. That’s right, read the history. The local Arabs weren’t trying to go live on Kibbutzim or moshavim, they were at multiple junctures in the 30 years from Balfour to UN Partition Plan trying to destroy them.

            In modern day Israel, by the way, Israel’s high court has ruled that housing discrimination is illegal.

            “If you tried to evict somebody from a farm because they were Arab, this argument would not fly in court.”

            It certainly would fly in court if I purchased the land and wanted to live on it or let my girlfriend work on it. Private property is private property.

            “And if Zionists tried establishing kibbutzim on the same basis in the US, bringing them to court would not be much of a challenge.”

            Sure, and if I tried to bring the slave trade to Israel, it would be illegal. Do you realize we’re talking about 70-100 years ago? By the way, here is the current situation in NY City where a condo “co-op” (read: cooperative association) can discriminate on many bases and it’s all legal:

            http://cooperator.com/articles/1450/1/Top-Dozen-Reasons-for-Co-op-Board-Rejections/Page1.html

            “When Transjordan was formally independent in 1946 and applied for UN membership, the Jewish Agency protested that it was still part of the Palestine Mandate and that its territory must be retained for development of the “Jewish National Home”.”

            And yet, in 1937 the Yishuv accepted the Peel Commission’s partition, which presumed the Jews would receive a small portion of everything to the west of the Jordan River. Since the Arabs rejected the compromise, apparently the Jewish side felt strongly that before the Arabs get a state on Mandatory Palestine territory, the Jews also deserved one. It’s called politics.

            http://www.passia.org/publications/bookmaps/page1.htm

            And in 1947, the Yishuv accepted a partition plan that included a little more than half of everything west of the Jordan river.

            http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm

            And after 1922, the Yishuv did not demonstrate against Article 25 of the Mandate. My point stands.

            “Ben-Gurion wrote this gem to his son in 1937: “But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.”

            Thanks, but as a number of Ben Gurion historians have noted, his views were not as stated in that contested letter (and Palestine-Studies is one of the most biased sources around, by the way). Ben Gurion, in the preamble to that misquoted letter actually talks about sharing the land with the Arabs – and specifically the Negev which he is willing to accept. As I noted above to Greenstein, even the right wingers of the time believed that Israel would be established as a democracy where a Jewish majority rules. Read Jabotinsky.

            “The Jewish Agency and the JNF searched for loopholes that would give them some kind of presence in Transjordan, mainly through business contracts. The JNF even sent missions across the river to gauge the possibility of buying land.”

            You mean, they didn’t sit back and accept that only Arabs have agency to acquire land from the British? First of all, by 1933 the British had already told Jewish bodies they would not allow Jews to settle in Transjordan – see pg. 182 of State, Society, and Land in Jordan by Michael R. Fischbach. Second, as I keep pointing out, both in 1937 and 1947 the Yishuv agreed to partition plans that not only exclude Transjordan but half of what is west of the Jordan River.

            “The Zionists have always used force to alter agreements they didn’t like. Transjordan was spared their conquest only because Britain was responsible for its defense.”

            I see. So it was Israel that attacked Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, local Arab militias, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and not the other way around. Good to see you’re not too much of a revisionist. Just a reminder, by the way, that when the war ended, it was the Jordanians who refused to make the armistice lines permanent despite Israel’s offer.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            thanks for letting us know that it took the US until 1964 to establish laws that you and Mr. Greenstein would have the Jewish Yishuv, representing a significant minority, accept in 1920

            Well, your earlier syntax indicated that buying land from Arab effendis and excluding non-Jews from the property is no different than if today you bought property in the United States and did the same thing on the pretext of establishing a gated community. So once again, a Zionist advocate wants us to believe the Jews had the right to a state, yet also wants to feign cluelessness on how they were going to obtain it.

            In modern day Israel, by the way, Israel’s high court has ruled that housing discrimination is illegal.

            The Israeli high court is not as powerful as its US counterpart, and it’s certainly not empowered to defeat racial discrimination. “In the ruling, Barak drew heavily on court decisions in the United States barring discrimination against blacks. Aware of the saliently post-Zionist implications of the judgment, he made a major effort to remain within the state’s ideological consensus: After all he had said about the principle of equality, he demanded no more than that the state “reconsider” the request by Adal and Iman Kaadan.”

            haaretz.com/news/a-decade-of-dreams-down-the-drain-1.170940

            It certainly would fly in court if I purchased the land and wanted to live on it or let my girlfriend work on it. Private property is private property.

            It would not fly in court if you purchased the land for the express purpose of altering the demography, which the JNF made no secret about doing. Again, silly, disingenuous argument, since the Labour Zionist movement that founded Israel was obtaining land for the Jewish people in perpetuity, and not private individuals.

            By the way, here is the current situation in NY City where a condo “co-op” (read: cooperative association) can discriminate on many bases and it’s all legal:

            This is sticking with the theme: The kibbutzim were not gated communities discriminating on a financial or class basis. They were set up to keep Jews in and Arabs out. And by the way, that discrimination also extended to Jews from other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Even Yemeni Jews were expelled from Kinneret.

            books.google.com/books?id=btojaBm-oy4C&pg=PA161

            And yet, in 1937 the Yishuv accepted the Peel Commission’s partition, which presumed the Jews would receive a small portion of everything to the west of the Jordan River.

            The funny thing is, even the link you posted has this to say: “Encouraged by the legitimization it granted their program, but not content with the scale of conquest, the Zionist leadership accepted ‘in principle’ but rejected ‘in detail’ the partition plan”. And I was about to post some material that showed the same thing. It’s propaganda to portray the Zionist movement as if they were ready to accept the first compromise, the first partition proposal, even.

            That goes double for the UNSCOP partition. The Jewish Agency rep publicly objected to the inclusion of Western Galilee in the Arab State and the Corpus Separatum[1] and declared acceptance of the Majority Report was qualified on “further discussion of the constitution and territorial provisions”. What’s more, Weizmann pressed Truman for the inclusion of Aqaba in the Jewish State[2].

            [1] jta.org/1947/10/03/archive/silver-tells-u-n-that-jews-will-accept-partition-wants-unscop-plan-modified
            [2] books.google.com/books?id=JAW2aHnkL4UC&pg=PA60

            Ben Gurion, in the preamble to that misquoted letter actually talks about sharing the land with the Arabs – and specifically the Negev which he is willing to accept.

            He also talked about smashing any boundary line established by a partition agreement that would give the Negev to the Arabs. Of course, you have to look elsewhere for indications that Ben-Gurion didn’t plan on sharing the land after conquest, either. Such as the Zionist congress discussing the Peel Plan.

            “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.”

            http://books.google.com/books?id=uM_kFX6edX8C&pg=PA48

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            (Cont. 2)

            “Again, silly, disingenuous argument, since the Labour Zionist movement that founded Israel was obtaining land for the Jewish people in perpetuity, and not private individuals.”

            Um, yeah, they were Socialists and they wanted to build a state on land which they owned as a collective. You’d think there was something wrong with that. LOL.

            They weren’t even buying land for themselves but for their communities. Nothing silly about it. This is what they believed. And they acted on the basis of, 1. international consensus that this would become their home; 2. that they could buy the land which would be the underpinning of that national home; 3. that they could develop their democratic majority by enabling employment and economic development of this territory. 4. By spending enormously to buy the land legally.

            What they did is actually quite admirable… and legal… and ethical. Most of them believed they would achieve their goals by building a democracy with a Jewish majority on land they would come to own through purchase.

            Also, it’s silly to speak about early Zionists as a monolith. Just as you see a multiplicity of opinions in today’s Israel, back then you had early Zionists who voiced strong opinions about not forming a state, or forming a state that included Transjordan, or forming a binational state in all of Western Palestine, or with different premises regarding the role, separate or together, of the Arabs in their future (utopian) society in their hoped-for Jewish state.

            It is “silly,” however, for anyone to claim that the Yishuv or its leaders were absolutely clear about how they should act. They were striving to achieve the goal of returning Jews to Zion and establishing a democratic state, and acting, or modifying actions, on the basis of the multitude of challenges they were facing in real time.

            Consider, for example, Ben Gurion’s efforts from 1933-1936 to strike a deal with Arab leaders to permit unrestricted Jewish immigration to western Mandatory Palestine with an understanding the Jews would live inside a pan-Arabic entity. Haj Amin al Husseini killed the talks by fomenting the 1936 Arab attacks. How does this fit into your claims? It demonstrates a desire to adjust…and a willingness to compromise if it led to the fulfillment of returning Jews to Zion.

            (See: pg. 45 of Nine Lives of Israel: A Nation’s History through the Lives of Its Foremost Leaders By Jack L. Schwartzwald.)

            “The funny thing is…the Zionist leadership accepted ‘in principle’ but rejected ‘in detail’ the partition plan”.

            But they accepted it in principle. You can hedge all you want, but they were willing to proceed, even if they had reservations. The Arabs rejected the proposal entirely and attacked. Has they accepted, as Ben Gurion noted later, perhaps the millions of Jews who perished in the Holocaust could have been saved.

            The deal offered by Peel involved giving up substantial land in the part of Palestine the Zionists assumed they would receive. despite the loss of most of this land (after losing TransJordan already) around two thirds of the delegates of the Zionist Congress approved pursuing the Commission’s plan. What courage!!! What a desire for peace!!!

            It is also notable that Ben Gurion wrote in his diary that he envisioned this as a grand opportunity that the Zionists must seize because even on a tiny parcel, achieving independence to him was a dream come true. The Arabs, on the other hand, launched more attacks.

            “That goes double for the UNSCOP partition. The Jewish Agency rep publicly objected …”

            Um, that was on October 3. The Partition Plan was voted on, with Zionists pushing for it, on November 29.

            http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch2.pdf

            There’s a reason people are dissuaded from seeing how a sausage is made, or any political bill for that matter; the negotiations are ugly. However, the outcome is what matters and the Yishuv voted in favor of accepting the UNGA’s Partition Plan of 1947. The Arabs attacked (see the pattern yet?).

            “He also talked about smashing any boundary line established by a partition agreement that would give the Negev to the Arabs. Of course, you have to look elsewhere for indications that Ben-Gurion didn’t plan on sharing the land after conquest, either. Such as the Zionist congress discussing the Peel Plan.”

            Ben Gurion was selling to the Congress what a British commission recommended. The Peel Commission correctly pointed out that successful population exchanges had resolved friction among people, and specified the Greek and Turk population exchange in the 1920s which was deemed a success. You can attribute to Ben Gurion all the nasty motives you like, but he was echoing Peel’s correct assertions about other, similar, historical precedents – which would, by the way, be seen again after WWII in Europe and around the time of Israel’s creation between India and Pakistan.

            Oddly enough, however, just as Israel’s critics ignore ongoing occupations such as Turkey’s in Cyprus, Morocco’s in the Sahara or China’s in Tibet, not to mention ignoring or paying lip service to atrocities such as those we saw in Darfur or presently in Syria, and look away from the horrendous, ongoing, human rights violations of countries such as China and Iran, Israel’s critics only want to discuss Israel and attribute to it and its founders nasty motives that they ignore elsewhere where far greater magnitudes of the same issues took place.

            Oh, and they like to gloss over the decades-long Arab attacks on the Yishuv and then on Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            @Ran

            Rab is mopping the floor with you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Here is an Israeli left-winger, former director general of the Foreign Ministry, rebuking Ha’aretz in Ha’aretz for trying to make their point about the conflict by taking historical short-cuts. His op-ed applies to your revisionist history quite well and I recommend you read it:

            http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.589422

            Reply to Comment
          • maya

            I doubt that there many states on this planet that are not institutionalized regimes of oppression and domination. If these are the definitions of the Rome Statute then it is an ill written legal text, using terms and notions that are too vague to work with.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Joel

      ‘.. Namibia under South African occupation, which is the subject of another article that 972 should publish soon.’

      Easy. South Africa was given the Mandate to Namibia by the League of Nations and than S.A. refused to give it up.

      Israel occupied West Bank and Gaza as a consequence of a defensive war.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Ran Greenstein

      Before anyone gets carried away by Namibia, consider it is located 1000 miles away from any South African population centre, and was never a target equivalent for even a fraction of the Israeli investment in infrastructure, settlements, population and political capital, in the Palestinian territories. Nor were there millions of Namibian refugees seeking to return to South Africa itself, or a large Namibian population within SA borders, or large segments of the SA population claiming historical rights and looking to revive their religious heritage there.

      In other words, compared to the 1967 territories, Namibia was remote, marginal politically and culturally, and – crucially – lacking any link to core issues of the SA situation. Thus, it was an isolated issue that could be solved easily on its own (as it was indeed, once reason prevailed). Nothing approaching even remotely the 1967 situation

      Reply to Comment
    9. rowan somerville

      I am grateful to both writers and commentators for their comments and text – I do agree with RG that TM’s article becomes a confusing journey -Im not saying its like that for everyone, it became so for me. However, reading the philosopher Wittgenstein is a confusing journey but none the less rigorous for it.
      My (all to vague) point however is this; I dont think there is a resolution achievable here. On the one hand there are many similarities, undeniable similarities, between today’s Isreal and the Apartheid rule of South Africa -(there are even similarities of myth with the Boer myths of being chosen by God to look after the land) -I wont elaborate the more salient points here as we all know the arguments (no?) . So, on the one hand it IS a valid comparison. On the other hand, there are essential differences (which I dont need to go into here -do I?), the essential problem being (for me) that the comparison with apartheid engenders a somewhat dualistic idea of GOOD versus EVIL that is misleading and unhelpful in this case. So like any tool it can be used or misused. It is not absolute…can we agree that absolute colonisation of language is the unifying strategy of fundamentalism? Thus we agree there’s not a final answer.
      However, my own view having researched a book on Apartheid and writing one at the moment based in Israel and the West Bank , my own view is that, although incendiary (and incendiary devices must be used with caution) the term is appropriate. There’s so much I love about Isreal and all that I love is in the people.. but in the struggle between a mighty and the weak, to be in the middle is not to be impartial but to side with the oppressor.

      Reply to Comment
      • Rab

        Ah yes, the “oppressor.”

        Let’s look at a map, shall we?

        https://www.google.com/maps/@27.355653,32.4574385,5z

        We can only hope you meant that the oppressor is one (or both) of the two Palestinian governments presently in place.

        The term apartheid does not apply to this nationalistic conflict over land. It never did and it never will. The term is nothing more than a propaganda tool intended to weaken Israel and its perception in the public’s eye.

        Reply to Comment
        • MuslimJew

          This isn’t a “nationalistic conflict”.

          Jews may be the nationals of the state of Israel, but that doesn’t make Jews a nation.

          This is a conflict between the brainwashed and the enlightened.

          And you’re only shocked because it is you who’s ignorant.

          Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Ah yes, the brainwashed and the enlightened.

            And the PA and its shills are the enlightened?

            Hahahaha. Too funny.

            Reply to Comment
    10. Tomer

      In South Africa, a bunch of Dutch (and later English people) aggressively settled a country that was essentially black African.

      In Israel, a bunch of 7th Century Arabs aggressively settled a Land that was essentially Jewish.

      In both cases, the Foreign presence was ended with the victory of the Indigenous Inhabitants. In Israel’s case, the defeated Arab Conquerors refused to surrender unconditionally post 6 day war. Hence, the unsolvable status quo.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Piotr Berman

      South African Act was enacted by the British Parliament in 1912, 5 years before Balfour Declaration. Zionist project and Apartheid stem from the same milieu, conceived when the idea of different worth of different kinds of people held axiomatic hold in the Western establishment.

      Colonialism, occupation, apartheid — it is a bit like claiming that one should not say that a woman with auburn hair is a redhead. To a professional, there is a vast number of different colors out there, with 8 shades of copper hair, seven types of auburn and so on. But we need broader categories too.

      Reply to Comment
      • Rab

        “Zionist project and apartheid stem from the same milieu.”

        Your ignorance is shocking.

        Reply to Comment
        • shachalnur

          Zionism and Apartheid stem from the same milieu,because they were sponsored and enabled by the same powers.

          Neither Zionism ,nor Apartheid would have been possible without huge financial and political backing.

          Qui bono?

          Follow the money,and you’ll understand what this milieu is.

          Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Every single Arab country in the Middle East was founded by the same forces. In the same period.

            Anything else you want to add?

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            Every single Arab country in the Middle East was founded by indoctrinated white assholes, who had to arrive by boat from America and Europe, who were claiming they were all 3000+ years old and that they were returning to a land they’d never previously set foot in, and that all they ever truly wanted was a chance to live side by side with the true natives they ethnically cleansed.

            Anything else you want to add?

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Um, you forgot the little green men from Mars.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            Why would I remember to mention “little green men from Mars”, when what I’m highlighting for you is just how dumb and deluded Zionism and Zionists are, not just how dumb and deluded Scientology and Scientologists are.

            Ur did

            Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        “Zionist project and apartheid stem from the same milieu.”

        Really? How is this the same milieu?

        South Africa: A bunch of whites who had a home in Europe found a rich abundant land in Africa and made it their own without considering the native black population who lived there.

        Palestine: A bunch of persecuted Jews who were subject to periodic pogroms have had enough and returned to the land from which European invaders expelled them 2000 years before. They did not displace ANY descendants of Arab invaders who lived there but were willing to live side by side with them.

        PS
        If we want to talk about persecution, then lets talk about how the descendants of Arab invaders persecuted the Jews of Palestine who managed to stay (or return) there over the 2000 years of exile. Read the article by none other than Karl Marx who mentions the oppression of Jerusalem’s Jews in 1854. That was before the advent of modern Zionism:

        http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/03/28.htm

        Reply to Comment
    12. Samuel

      As to the myth that the returning Jews displaced the poor Felahin, not true!

      An overwhelming number of the land that was purchased by Jews were uninhabited swamp lands which Jews built up from scratch. Some were new suburbs alongside existing places such as Jaffa (Tel Aviv), Jerusalem (the new city), Jericho, Hebron, etc …

      Many other places such as Petach Tikva, Rishon Lezion, Zikhron Yaakov, Nez Ziona, Rehovot, Hadera and more were built up from scratch on un inhabited lands purchased at exorbitant prices from absentee Arab land lords.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Tzutzik

      In the world of priviliged, elitist, champaine sipping, western leftist ideologues, only the persecution of brown or black skinned peoples is worthy of consideration.

      When it comes to Jews, our historic persecution as minorities in European and Arab lands is worth diddly-squat because some of us happen to have fair skin. Our persecution is to be made fun of, trivialised or if necessary even to be denied. All for the altar of their “noble cause”, their crusade against European capitalism and colonialism which gave them their priviliged position to sit in their collective arm chairs and which allows them to pass judgment on “the others” whom they don’t like. They made us Zionists “the others”. We have been fighting a 100 year war for freedom to live in our own country and to allow us to decide our own future without being dependent on past European or Arab oppressors. But they cannot forgive us for failing to establish their much vaunted “socialist utopia” which they hoped we would establish in Israel. So now they consider us to be their mortal enemies.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        So that’s it? That’s all it took for the Arabs to get what they want? No Jewish state now because of 100 years of persistent rejectionism by them? Only in your opinion!!!

        As for the rest of us, we will have a state for the Jewish people with the 20% Arab minority given as many rights as possible. Ideally, the full rights of citizens except for immigration equal immigration rights for Arabs.

        As for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. They can do whatever they want. They can have their independent state along us or confederate with Jordan. Or if they want, they can continue to be occupied until such time as they relent and accept one of the above. But they will never become Israeli citizens. End of story.

        Reply to Comment
    14. Samuel

      Seriously. Only we the Jewish people can be this stupid. Anyone else would laugh in the face of the critics who criticize us now.

      This has been a nationalist struggle for a piece of land between our people and the Arab people. And some of us want us to throw in the towel because the way things are heading, due to Arab intransigence, this is not turning out to be a polite ladies auxiliary sport contest?

      Only some of us Jews would even consider sacrificing our own, our children’s and children’s children futures down the line for such considerations. No other people would even bring it up. They would just go all out helter skelter to ensure their own and their descendants futures.

      But fortunately not all of us are stupid. So we too will do whatever is necessary to ensure our national interest and survival.

      Reply to Comment
    15. Rab

      “…indicated that buying land from Arab effendis and excluding non-Jews from the property is no different than if today you bought property…on the pretext of establishing a gated community.”

      My point, which NYC co-ops and suburban residential developments, gated and ungated, around the USA prove exceptionally well, is that when you purchase property, it is yours, and as long as you stick to building codes etc. it is yours to do with as you please. If you and others, or a developer instead of a group, band together to build a community that has to abide by certain rules including some that would keep others out, then even in today’s America these rules would hold up. Can you make those distinctions on a racial, ethnic or religious basis? No. But you certainly may do it indirectly to determine your residents on a cultural or economic basis, as many of these New York co-ops and country-wide residential developments do.

      It is also telling that you have not addressed my comments about the significant cultural differences between the Arabs and Jews of early last century in Palestine, differences that would have the Arabs rejecting Jews and their culture to the degree of uniting to attack them regularly.

      “So once again, a Zionist advocate wants us to believe the Jews had the right to a state, yet also wants to feign cluelessness on how they were going to obtain it.”

      Feigning nothing. Providing you with facts. How were the early Zionists going to obtain a state? With democracy. By bringing out Jews to what was mandated globally as the Jewish home, and by developing numbers that would grant them a democratic majority. Read Jabotinsky:

      “If we were to have a Jewish majority in Eretz Israel, then first of all, we would create here a situation of total, absolute, and complete equal rights, with no exceptions: whether Jew, Arab, Armenian, or German, there is no difference before the law; all paths are open before him.
      . . . Complete equal rights would be granted not only to citizens as individuals but also to languages and nations.

      “The Land of Israel,” in Guidelines for Current Problems,
      ed. Yosef Nedava (Tel Aviv: Jabotinsky Institute, 1981), p. 75 [Hebrew].

      All of us, all Jews and Zionists of all schools of thought, want the best for the Arabs of Eretz Israel. We do not want to eject even one Arab from either the left or the right bank of the Jordan River. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally. We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine [Eretz Israel ha-Ivri] as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for all Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will also be fulfilled.

      “Roundtable with the Arabs,” in
      Writings: On the Way to a State
      (Jerusalem: Eri Jabotinsky, 1959), p. 245 [Hebrew]

      http://en.idi.org.il/media/2384931/Jabotinsky-IDI-2013.pdf

      Do you need me to trot out those leaders who were to his left as well? Or maybe you could just concede the obvious already? Oh, and true to plan, Israel’s Arab population today has grown from 100,000 to 1.5 million since 1948. Talk about feigning ignorance. Maybe you should stop?

      “The Israeli high court is not as powerful as its US counterpart, and it’s certainly not empowered to defeat racial discrimination.”

      It’s Israel’s High Court. Stop making excuses. Arabs are moving into Jewish towns all the time.

      http://www.jewishcharlotte.org/page.aspx?id=167094

      http://www.cjp.org/page.aspx?id=206230

      http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=32336&lan=en&sp=0

      “It would not fly in court if you purchased the land for the express purpose of altering the demography, which the JNF made no secret about doing.”

      Actually, altering the demography is precisely what happens in new developments across the United States. When a company buys a tract of land (from a farmer very often) and builds McMansions, it is knowingly changing the demographics in that area. Take a look at California where farmland is regularly converted into developments where the Mexican laborers who farmed those fields cannot even contemplate affording the homes built on their former workplace. It’s perfectly legal and done all the time. And the farmhands move on to other farms and other areas to earn their keep while the yoga-wearing mamas and BMW driving papas take their kids to soccer practice.

      At the end of the day, Jews came to the ancient land of Israel, which was uninhabited to a degree where today about 25 times the population of 1900 resides on this land, to build communities and a society for themselves, from a positive standpoint that took into account improving the lives of the Arabs, not a negative one as you imply…and as Jabotinsky’s quotes above elucidate.

      (Cont).

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        Due to time constraints, I’m only responding to this post for now.

        But you certainly may do it indirectly to determine your residents on a cultural or economic basis, as many of these New York co-ops and country-wide residential developments do.

        Which for the tenth time does not describe the WZO-founded agricultural settlements. What’s more, even a co-op would not get off the ground if the previous residents had to be evicted on a racial basis, and that is exactly what the JNF demanded from the landowners.

        It is also telling that you have not addressed my comments about the significant cultural differences between the Arabs and Jews of early last century in Palestine, differences that would have the Arabs rejecting Jews and their culture to the degree of uniting to attack them regularly.

        There were significant cultural differences among European Jews and those from other parts of the Ottoman Empire, to the point the olim from Yemen were not welcomed in the kibbutzim, period, and only permitted in moshavot as workers, not residents. When Yemenite workers went on strike, their Asheknazi counterparts did not join them. Kibbutzniks Yosef Bussel and Israel Bloch (Both founders of Degania) wrote that while they would expand into new territory, the role of conquering labor in the moshavot fell to the Yemenites. These attitudes did not stem from Arab rejection.
        http://books.google.com/books?id=OBzoJJGUAvUC&pg=PA105
        PA114

        Re: Jabotinsky, three words come to mind: separate but equal. There’s little difference between what Jabotinsky is saying here and how the ideologues of South African apartheid and United States’ Jim Crow justified those measures of segregation. We might want to remember that he advocated using force to guarantee Jewish immigration and continued colonial rule over the whole MENA (See “The Iron Wall”). Putting two and two together, he was calling for a military conquest of Eretz Israel. Plus, when the Revisionist Movement formed its own labor federation, they weren’t demanding equal wages for Jewish and Arab workers. And what about those to his left? Ben-Gurion infamously led a riot at the plantation of Nes Ziona that forced the termination of the Arab workers so they could be replaced by the Histadrut.

        Take a look at California where farmland is regularly converted into developments where the Mexican laborers who farmed those fields cannot even contemplate affording the homes built on their former workplace.

        We both agree class inequality is a backdoor to discrimination. However, the law still protects those who can afford to buy a home or are qualified for public housing. And the US Department of Housing and Urban Development has taken action against US cities over demographic warfare on Hispanic- and African-Americans.

        “That same year HUD filed a complaint against the city of Waukegan, Illinois, citing allegations that in 1994, after experiencing significant increases in its Latino population, the city revised its housing code to include more restrictions on overcrowding. DOJ alleged that Hispanic families often were asked to vacate their homes even when they did not live in overcrowded conditions. Furthermore, city records indicated that all the families who
        were evicted from their homes pursuant to the new city codes were Hispanic (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996)”
        huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol4num3/yzaguirre.pdf

        “What were those policies? According to the press release, “Specifically, the review found that, in response to racial tensions and concerns about crime, the City established a residency preference point system that effectively imposed a residency requirement, putting those from predominantly African American areas at a disadvantage.””
        fhanewsblog.com/2014/04/hud-and-the-city-of-dubuque-iowa-settle-discrimination-case/

        The Israeli govt. sought to evade the High Court ruling in the Kaadan case and provided the JNF and ILA with some convenient loopholes for excluding non-Jewish Israeli citizens: For each non-Jew who obtains a plot of land, the JNF must be compensated with an equal amount by the ILA. Furthermore, the Admissions Committees Law empowers moshavim to reject applicants on the basis of suitability for “social life in the community”.
        haaretz.com/print-edition/news/jnf-to-tell-court-it-will-market-land-to-non-jews-1.229889
        adalah.org/upfiles/2011/New_Discriminatory_Laws.pdf

        When the Kaadan case first unfolded, the Katzir Admissions Committee seamlessly changed tactics and rejected them on the basis of “social suitability” until finally in 2007 they won another court appeal. Considering it took them a 12-year legal battle to obtain a plot of land, it’s rather unconvincing to claim Israeli citizens are equal before the law.
        http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-moves-legalize-segregated-jewish-only-communities/9140

        Reply to Comment
        • Rab

          Other than throwing in some new claims (Jim Crow, etc.) and adding Electronic Intifada as a source (haahaha), I’m afraid you’ve added nothing new of substance and you’ve left me entirely unconvinced.

          To repeat: We’re talking about 100 years ago, but you want to apply today’s standards. Then, when you’re shown that even today similar situations exist, you try to weasel out of it by claiming that race and racism are the issues, even though “race” is not what separates Arabs and Jews. You’re shown that developments in states where farmers are bought out then establish neighborhoods where not a single of the former farmhands could dream of buying a house, but you claim this is somehow different and that ownership of land and doing with it what one pleases to establish a community (or something else) isn’t a standard by which we live today. And so on and so forth.

          You know what? Enjoy Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss. Clearly the truth and the facts don’t interest you. You’d like to disparage Israel and Zionism. Just remember that you couldn’t even make your case about 100 years ago, and you certainly wouldn’t be able to offer support regarding claims Greenstein is making about modern day Israel.

          http://israel21c.org/headlines/meet-the-technions-new-valedictorian-in-medicine/

          Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            The crucial difference between the JNF practice and what you describe in California is the overarching goal and the measures available to the target group in their defense. US citizens of Mexican descent can not be expelled from the US, nor the property they own or are paying rent for. The Zionists abused a continually changing legal framework (under the Ottomans and Britain) to evict farmers with the intention of eventually expelling them from a Palestine converted into a Jewish state. So while the uppercrust white snobs might suck as much or even more (At least the Zionists had to deal with agriculture and malaria), they can’t take it as far as what was possible 100 years ago.

            We’re talking about 100 years ago, but you want to apply today’s standards.

            The standards you’re talking about here belong to what was legally permitted at the time. Many people considered Jim Crow a bad thing while it was in force, and I’d rather take my cue from them over the SC justices who ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson. To use a more salient example, the May Laws which officiated segregation of Jews in the Russian Empire were protested by the US govt. If people back then can take notice, I can hold the Zionists accountable for attempting to create a segregationist regime themselves. They knew what they were doing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            “The crucial difference between the JNF practice and what you describe in California is the overarching goal and the measures available to the target group in their defense.”

            That, and the fact that back in the early 1900s the Ottomans controlled the land and Jews were permitted to buy land but not to build institutional buildings such as synagogues. Then after 1917, Jews were permitted to buy land and use it as they would, but even then severe restrictions were placed on their ability to purchase.

            “US citizens of Mexican descent can not be expelled from the US,”

            Neither could Arabs be expelled from Ottoman empire lands or subsequently from British and French controlled lands. They certainly weren’t expelled from Mandatory Palestine by Jews who purchased land. On the contrary, the Jews had to purchase land bearing in mind where it was and who was nearby, because they could be subject to attack and expulsion.

            “nor the property they own”

            No Arabs were evicted from properties they own in the period we’re discussing. That came much later, after numerous attempts by the Arabs to attack the Jewish minority in the land in order to kill and dispossess them. The civil war they launched in 1947, however, leading up to the multi-Arab-State attacks of 1948, did however finally lead to fleeing and, in some cases, evictions. That had nothing to do with land purchases.

            “or are paying rent”

            If someone is paying the rent and somebody purchases the unit, they have the right in many states to evict the renter. What if they want to move in and live in the property? What if they want to renovate it?

            “The Zionists abused a continually changing legal framework (under the Ottomans and Britain) to evict farmers with the intention of eventually expelling them from a Palestine converted into a Jewish state.”

            No, the Zionists acted according to the laws and evicted some farmers in some cases with the intention of using the land for which they paid so much to build communities for themselves. Everything else you write isn’t just conjecture, I’ve already disproven it. For example, I’ve showed you that in 1933-1936, Ben Gurion was negotiating with Arab notables to permit Jews to live independently within a broad pan-Arab area (negotiations were cut off when the Palestinian leader, al-Husseini launched his 1936 attacks on Jews and British). Obviously, this fact undermines your claims.

            “So while the uppercrust white snobs might suck as much or even more (At least the Zionists had to deal with agriculture and malaria), they can’t take it as far as what was possible 100 years ago.”

            Actually, considering the circumstances of 100 years ago, I don’t think you’ve made a case. At the end of the day, Jews paid enormous amounts to buy land on which they could build enclaves to live and to work. They used this land precisely to that purpose. The felaheen who were affected, lost their jobs, just like most farm workers do in certain seasons or when crops change or when ownership of land changes. The history of the Middle East in the 1800s and early 1900s is replete with farmers moving around to wherever they could get work. It’s just that when Jews are involved, suddenly it’s a crime. Give us all a break.

            “We’re talking about 100 years ago, but you want to apply today’s standards.

            The standards you’re talking about here belong to what was legally permitted at the time. Many people considered Jim Crow a bad thing while it was in force, and I’d rather take my cue from them over the SC justices who ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson. To use a more salient example, the May Laws which officiated segregation of Jews in the Russian Empire were protested by the US govt. If people back then can take notice, I can hold the Zionists accountable for attempting to create a segregationist regime themselves. They knew what they were doing.”

            Segregationist, my tuches. They were building up their own community and society with the FULL expectation, as I’ve shown you with even Jabotinski quotes, that they would share the land with the Arabs.

            You have made a poor case. Let me know if you need assistance arguing your side of the equation next time.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Both Herzl and Ruppin proposed on separate occasions obtaining plots of land elsewhere in the Empire for evicted fellahin. Herzl’s plan for a Jewish-Ottoman Land Company: “The right to exchange economic enclaves of its territory, with the exception of the holy places or places already designated for worship. The owners shall receive plots of equal size and quality procured by it (the JOLC) in other provinces and territories of the Ottoman Empire.” Ruppin: “We are considering a parallel
            Arab colonization. Thus, we are planning to buy land in the regions of Homs, Aleppo etc. which we will sell under easy terms to those Palestinian fellahin who have been harmed by our land purchases.” Even assuming such emigration would be voluntary, these proposals show they had an initiative for removing Arabs from the land of the eventual Jewish state.
            al-awda.org/zionists01.html
            tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf (p. 375 for above quote)

            To say the Arab farmers did not own their land and leave it at that is intellectual laziness. Landownership in the Ottoman Empire did not work as it does in a modern, capitalist state and the legal nature of it rapidly evolved in the mid-late 1800’s. To put it in one, a variety of factors – the capitulations, interference in local politics by European consuls and corrupt officials – combined to enable the Zionists to carry out evictions the Ottoman state should have prevented. So-called urban notables took advantage of the 1858 Land Code to register huge parcels in their own name which gave them title to land that should have belonged to the peasants. The 1858 Code was so haphazardly applied across the Empire it resulted in the opposite of its intended effect, empowering various intermediaries between the farmers and the government (While it was supposed to centralize the state’s authority) and was actually suspended in Iraq on two occasions. It should be common sense though that a state which can’t prevent the eviction of its own citizens by foreign nationals is abjectly failing them.
            etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12608323/index.pdf (esp. 102)

            In the areas, where state control was effective, small landholders registered the lands in their own names. In the areas, where it was not effective, sheikhs got the title of the lands. 224 Indeed, control and survey are very interrelated processes. For eastern Anatolia was a region where control was never totally formed, the registration process turned to a failure throughout the region. In the region, the state control was only active in the city centers; on the other hand, the state control disappeared in the periphery. This non-control made the survey and the title deed registration imperfect and problematic.

            As for the British Mandate, to say the JNF acted within the law is a Kafkaesque joke, since on certain occasions the Jewish Agency had input in the wording of land ordinances. In 1929, the Administration passed the Protection of Cultivators ordinance, and the Jewish Agency lobbied for several changes, successfully limiting the protection to those who worked the land for more than two years.
            books.google.com/books?id=yNpJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA73

            Re: Ben-Gurion, apparently you’re talking about his meeting with George Antonius. Granted, the Jewish Agency was seriously considering a federal Arab state with an autonomous Jewish area. However, this leads to the elephant in the room, unrestricted immigration and land acquisition was still their demand for that federated Jewish state. While we’re on the subject of being unfairly singled out, there’s not one state in history that acceded to the demand of outsiders for unlimited immigration, and it was perfectly reasonable of the Palestinian Arabs not accepting to be the first.
            http://books.google.com/books?id=JraZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT70

            Yes, the Labour Zionists were willing to share the land provided they could make any space exclusively Jewish at will and obtain any plot of land they wanted. What they were not willing to do was build mixed Arab-Jewish areas or farm alongside Arabs (Of course, they never achieved the complete separation of Jewish and Arab workers in the yishuv, but that was the aim of their own institutions). Frankly, Jabotinsky could not have believed imposing a situation by force of arms would lead to equality. The idea that you are sharing with someone after taking what you want from them without their consent is madman logic.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            “Both Herzl and Ruppin proposed on separate occasions obtaining plots of land elsewhere in the Empire for evicted fellahin…”

            All you’ve shown is that along with numerous other Zionists and Zionist plans, there are a couple of quotes that demonstrate a particular set of ideas at a particular time…both of which evolved considerably later. For example, if you want to take everything Herzl said at face value, then surely you realize you’re wrong when you find out, as you’re about to, that he also said, “The misery of the felaheen by the road is indescribable, I resolve to think of the felaheen too when I have the power.”

            See? Please spare us the Herzl quotes.

            “To say the Arab farmers did not own their land and leave it at that is intellectual laziness.” Plus this long description of land ownership in the Ottoman Empire.

            Whatever. The Ottomans were shits. On that we can agree. So were the Nashashibis, Husseinis, Barghoutis and other families that used Ottoman laws to enrich themselves and grab land which they sold to Jews. Guess what? Jews suffered as well under these laws. And yet, these laws were the laws of the land and when land was purchased, it was purchased according to Ottoman law and then British Mandatory rules. If you really want to go down this road of false ownership of land because of Ottoman rules, then you will have to simply accept that NONE of the land was owned by anybody.

            “As for the British Mandate, to say the JNF acted within the law is a Kafkaesque joke, since on certain occasions the Jewish Agency had input in the wording of land ordinances. In 1929, the Administration passed the Protection of Cultivators ordinance, and the Jewish Agency lobbied for several changes, successfully limiting the protection to those who worked the land for more than two years.”

            Your ignorance, again, is glaring. Aren’t you aware that the British, precisely because of this White Paper, began to give the Arab vast tracts of agricultural land, which they didn’t own and which the Mandate’s own rules should have prevented them from giving to the Arabs? Read up on it. You’ll learn that the British did a calculation of what the Arabs’ primitive agricultural methods would require in terms of land in order to feed families…and then they simply gave them such lands. So if you’re trying to complain about the JNF and faulty land controls, you should begin there. Much of the “privately owned” Palestinian land of pre-1948 is actually illegally gifted land given by the British.

            “Re: Ben-Gurion, apparently you’re talking about his meeting with George Antonius. Granted, the Jewish Agency was seriously considering a federal Arab state with an autonomous Jewish area.”

            It doesn’t matter. The point is the offer was made.

            “However, this leads to the elephant in the room, unrestricted immigration and land acquisition was still their demand for that federated Jewish state.”

            Whatever. Take a look at the map and quit complaining: https://www.google.com/maps/preview?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&q=map+of+the+middle+east&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x157ec4658142ffb7:0xa5b8320215ea72c,Middle+East&gl=us&ei=jPl3U6S1D4SxoQTEg4CwBg&ved=0CCcQ8gEwAA&source=newuser-ws

            “While we’re on the subject of being unfairly singled out, there’s not one state in history that acceded to the demand of outsiders for unlimited immigration, and it was perfectly reasonable of the Palestinian Arabs not accepting to be the first.”

            Palestinian Arabs did not control the land. At all. Never did. It wasn’t their land to determine what could happen there. Read the Leila Khaled interview in 972 that popped up a couple of hours ago. Her parents were Lebanese living in Haifa. That family is considered “refugees” and they are an example of a family which you claim would have had a right to exclude Jewish immigration.

            “Yes, the Labour Zionists were willing to share the land provided they could make any space exclusively Jewish at will and obtain any plot of land they wanted.”

            No, that isn’t the case. Stop twisting history just because you have no argument.

            “What they were not willing to do was build mixed Arab-Jewish areas or farm alongside Arabs”

            Build mixed areas? What are you talking about? What about all the Jews who moved into and lived in Arab areas, such as Jaffa? As for farming alongside Arabs, there were numerous instances of farming alongside each other, in both Arab and Jewish owned agricultural businesses. Oh wait, you admit this in your brackets…contradicting your own claims.

            “Frankly, Jabotinsky could not have believed imposing a situation by force of arms would lead to equality. The idea that you are sharing with someone after taking what you want from them without their consent is madman logic.”

            Jabotinsky developed his theories AFTER Arab attacks on Jews. He believed in democracy and it doesn’t matter that you don’t get it. You keep trying to twist the facts and the history in order to make a non-existent point. Then when the facts destroy your premise, you relate to them as “madman logic.” Perhaps the madman is you?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            If I only responded to one thing in here, it’s amazing (and not the first time I’ve seen it) that you can defend the whole Zionist project on the grounds they were willing to share the land and at the same time defend the evictions because the Jewish settlers wanted to build communities for themselves.

            Advocates of Zionism frequently argue Jews can not live as a minority in Europe or the Middle East outside Israel because the events of the 1940’s may be repeated. So it shouldn’t be too hard to understand the Palestinian Arabs opposed Zionism because they expected the process of acquiring land and evicting the farmers to be expanded until it would be impossible for any of them to make a living that way. That’s human nature – when someone ruins your life, you probably won’t want to deal with them on the grounds they could do it again. The Zionists brought the conflict on themselves fair and square.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            How do you not blush in shame as you support the violence perpetrated against Jews when they were a TINY MINORITY on the land, busy spending hard-won money to BUY land on which they could work and build communities?

            That’s right, a tiny minority.

            Working hard.

            Buying land legally.

            Following the laws of the land. Following the rules set out by the international community.

            How do you excuse attacks, numerous ones, so commonplace that defending communities and building them to be safe became a way of life for the Jews? This is what you excuse.

            As for the lie about Arabs losing livelihood because of Jews, the joke you make on us all is that every historian points out the increased incomes of Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, particularly relative to other Middle Eastern territories under British or French control. Obviously, the key difference is that Jews were living in Mandatory Palestine.

            In fact, as the British, including Churchill, point out, the increased prosperity drove ARAB IMMIGRATION to Mandatory Palestine.

            You defend lies. You defend religious hatred. You defend violence that violated people who followed the law and who sought nothing more than to establish a safe haven for themselves on land that was AVAILABLE and FOR SALE and which was also their historic homeland.

            Thank heaven the Jews won in 1948 because if they had lost, you’d have nothing to talk about. On the basis of what you’ve written, you’d be in agreement with the murder and displacement of the Jews. After all, some of them came and bought property, brought prosperity and hope to an underdeveloped land and dreamed of creating a democratic country where Arabs and Jews could live together.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            Rab: “To repeat: We’re talking about 100 years ago, but you want to apply today’s standards. Then, when you’re shown that even today similar situations exist, you try to weasel out of it by claiming that race and racism are the issues, even though “race” is not what separates Arabs and Jews.”

            If you don’t want to apply today’s standards to something that happened 100 years ago, then why are you wasting everyone’s time by providing examples that apply today’s standards just so that you can claim a similarity to something from 100 years ago? Bizarrely, you then proceed to berate someone for highlighting your false equivalence, after they chose to refer to the very same (flawed) example you yourself provided (and that wasn’t equivalent to begin with).

            If you ever manage to stay off the Ziocaine for long enough, you might be able to see “what separates Arabs and Jews” is your rancid ideology, since there are plenty of Arabs who are Jews, and plenty of Jews who are Arabs.

            Rab: “You’re shown that developments in states where farmers are bought out then establish neighborhoods where not a single of the former farmhands could dream of buying a house, but you claim this is somehow different and that ownership of land and doing with it what one pleases to establish a community (or something else) isn’t a standard by which we live today. And so on and so forth.”

            No, we’re shown that you like to provide ludicrous comparisons in order to feign some equivalence between what Zionist criminals did back in the day, and between situations occurring today that apply today’s standards. Then, should anyone directly refer to any of your flawed comparisons, you like to accuse him or her of not seeing the false equivalence that was inherent in the ludicrous comparison(s) that you yourself provided.

            Rab: “You know what? Enjoy Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss. Clearly the truth and the facts don’t interest you. You’d like to disparage Israel and Zionism. Just remember that you couldn’t even make your case about 100 years ago, and you certainly wouldn’t be able to offer support regarding claims Greenstein is making about modern day Israel.”

            And now it appears that we have time-travelling advocates from 2014 who after having travelled back in time to 1914, are being reminded that they couldn’t make their case 100 years ago (or is it 100 years later, I’m not sure).

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            I stopped reading after the first couple of lines where you demonstrated a severe lack of comprehension.

            Reply to Comment
    16. MuslimJew

      In South Africa, a bunch of Dutch (and later English people) aggressively settled a country that was essentially black African.

      In Palestine, a bunch of indoctrinated, self-entitled, white assholes arrived by boat from America and Europe, claiming that they were returning to a land that they’d never set foot in and and that never existed, after spending 3000 years in exile – and not a single one of those zealots was even close to being over 3000 years old.

      In both cases, the foreign presence was ended with external pressure.

      Reply to Comment
      • Rab

        It’s funny how museums hold all these two-thousand-year-old objects with Hebrew inscriptions from this place that never existed, sometimes matching the very language used for centuries upon centuries in prayers, and the earliest Arab or Muslim inscriptions found date a thousand years (and more) later.

        Go ahead. Laugh.

        Reply to Comment
        • MuslimJew

          Are there museums I can visit that hold “two-thousand-year-old objects” with inscriptions in (the colonial-settler invented, and conquest aiding, artificial language of) Modern Hebrew?

          Are you a 2000+ year-old Hebrew? Is Ancient Hebrew your mother tongue, and if so, which dialect?

          Go ahead. Keep digging.

          Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Well, actually, the amazing thing about many of these two thousand year old museum holdings is that young Israeli children can read some of them and almost fully comprehend what they are reading even though they only know modern Hebrew. Sure, there are some words they might not recognize, just as British or American children may not comprehend all of Shakespeare’s vocabulary (only a few hundred years old, not two thousand years), but the alphabet is often similar or the same and the language and meanings are fairly clear. Sorry to burst your bubble.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            Are there any amazing Hebrew language plays that were written by Israeli playwrights in the late sixteenth or in the early seventeenth century that young Israeli children can read, in order for us to measure the level of their Hebrew language comprehension when the vocabulary being used is only a few hundred years old, not two thousand years?

            Moreover, do these young Israeli children almost fully comprehend that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, young Israeli children who could read some of the Hebrew inscriptions on many of these two thousand year old museum holdings and almost fully comprehend what they were reading, did not exist.

            And that the reason they didn’t exist is the very same reason that Hebrew language plays written by Israeli playwrights in the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century, don’t exist.

            Because Israeli playwrights didn’t exist in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

            And Hebrew didn’t exist as an everyday spoken or literary language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, like it hadn’t for centuries prior.

            Because the state of Israel never existed before 1948.

            Which is why the only version of Hebrew that these young Israeli children have ever known is the Hebrew of the Israeli settler-colonial variety.

            Burst your Zionist bubble.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            Dude, you’ve gone from denying one thing to denying something different.

            Stop trying to deflect facts. There were ALWAYS Jews living in the land of Israel. At times there were only small communities left, but there were always Jews there. And yes, they read Hebrew. Perhaps if they had the wealth of England, they would have also written plays…

            Reply to Comment
    17. MuslimJew

      Dude, you’ve gone from one non sequitur, to sharting out another bible story.

      Stop projecting your Zionism induced brainfarts. I shall continue to provide facts.

      The insipid, thought terminating cliche you are attempting to provide, i.e. “There were ALWAYS Jews living in the land of Israel”, is a meaningless string of words, because:

      1. In our previous exchange, neither you nor I used the word “Jews” even once.

      2. The word “Jews” in the above context is meaningless, unless you qualify it.

      3. Outside of religious texts and self-serving ideological dogma, the “land of Israel” does not exist, and all the archaeological vandalism continually being perpetrated by ideologues has yet to provide even a single shred of verifiable evidence that a place called the “land of Israel” has ever existed in reality.

      4. The independent state of Israel, which declared its independence and its borders in 1948, is not the biblical/ideological “land of Israel”, which probably never existed.

      And to address your remaining non sequiturs:

      1. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, any and all “small communities” of Jews who were living within the now internationally recognized borders of the modern Israeli State, were living in the land of Palestine.

      2. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries nobody spoke Hebrew as their everyday language and no Hebrew literature was being produced.

      3. The “wealth of England” is not required to write plays, and any plays written by anyone living in sixteenth and seventeenth century Palestine would have been written in one of the languages that were in everyday use there (e.g. Arabic).

      Reply to Comment
      • Rab

        “1. In our previous exchange, neither you nor I used the word “Jews” even once.”

        We also didn’t use Ottoman or Mamluk, Roman, Greek or Judean. But, despite your attempt to deflect, the fact is that Jews is what we’re discussing.

        “2. The word “Jews” in the above context is meaningless, unless you qualify it.”

        Dream on.

        “3. Outside of religious texts and self-serving ideological dogma, the “land of Israel” does not exist, and all the archaeological vandalism continually being perpetrated by ideologues has yet to provide even a single shred of verifiable evidence that a place called the “land of Israel” has ever existed in reality.”

        Go to visit the Israel Museum. Your ignorance is glaring. As to the Land of Israel, if you don’t like the title, you may use Judea and Samaria and Israel. Enjoy.

        “4. The independent state of Israel, which declared its independence and its borders in 1948, is not the biblical/ideological “land of Israel”, which probably never existed.”

        This is correct. Who claimed otherwise?

        And to address your remaining non sequiturs:

        “1. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, any and all “small communities” of Jews who were living within the now internationally recognized borders of the modern Israeli State, were living in the land of Palestine.”

        You mean, they were living in the Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire, in a section called Palestine after the Romans changed its name from JUDEA.

        “2. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries nobody spoke Hebrew as their everyday language and no Hebrew literature was being produced.”

        And your point is?

        “3. The “wealth of England” is not required to write plays, and any plays written by anyone living in sixteenth and seventeenth century Palestine would have been written in one of the languages that were in everyday use there (e.g. Arabic).”

        Your point is?

        To repeat, there has always been a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, particularly in Hebron, Tiberias, Safed and Jerusalem. Hebrew, as a language, was in use in this land two thousand and three thousand years ago, and remained in use to one degree or another, even if primarily in prayer, from then until today. The alphabet and language used two thousand years ago are so close to modern Hebrew that an Israeli child can read some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and understand what he reads. Jews have not only resided in the Land of Israel for thousands of years, at many points they were the majority population. For example, in the 1800s, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority. If you read the Muslim traveler al-Muqadeisi, a beloved writer of Edward Said because he used the term Filastin in his writings, he explicitly states that he sees a majority of Jews and Christians in Jerusalem and the Muslim capital of Filastin in Ramallah…and this is in the 10th Century.

        Don’t let the bitter taste in your mouth overwhelm you. Have a piece of fruit or chocolate or something.

        Reply to Comment
        • MulimJew

          Sorry for the late reply. Enjoy:

          Rab: “We also didn’t use Ottoman or Mamluk, Roman, Greek or Judean. But, despite your attempt to deflect, the fact is that Jews is what we’re discussing.”

          No, we didn’t use Ottoman or Mamluk, Roman, Greek or Judean. And, despite your appalling comprehension, the fact is that Israel is what we’re discussing.

          Rab: “Dream on.”

          Who are these “Jews”? Were these “Jews” American-Arab-Jews from Queens, and what was their religion?

          Rab: “Go to visit the Israel Museum. Your ignorance is glaring. As to the Land of Israel, if you don’t like the title, you may use Judea and Samaria and Israel. Enjoy.”

          You believe that “the Land of Israel” from the Bible is in the “Israel Museum”. Your ignorance is frightening. As to Bible stories, they’re not real, so I may call it Rab’s Zionism induced delusion. Who are Judea and Samaria btw, are they museum guides?

          Rab: “This is correct. Who claimed otherwise?”

          You did, when you claimed “the Land of Israel” from the Bible was in the “Israel Museum”, and when you presumed we were dicussing “Jews”, when we weren’t.

          Rab: “You mean, they were living in the Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire, in a section called Palestine after the Romans changed its name from JUDEA.”

          Yes, you are correct, what I meant was that in the sixteenth and seventeenth century they were living in Palestine. But why are you now incongruously writing about sixteenth and seventeenth century Romans and Judea, or do you now erroneously perceive that we were discussing Italians and museum guides living in sixteenth and seventeenth century Palestine?

          Rab: “And your point is?”

          That In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries nobody spoke Hebrew as their everyday language and no Hebrew literature was being produced.

          Rab: “Your point is?”

          That the “wealth of England” is not required to write plays, and that any plays written by anyone living in sixteenth and seventeenth century Palestine would have been written in one of the languages that were in everyday use there (e.g., Arabic).

          Rab: “To repeat, there has always been a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, particularly in Hebron, Tiberias, Safed and Jerusalem.”

          To repeat, “the Land of Israel” is a Bible story, ancient “Jews” have always been present in the bible, and Zionists love to talk about ancient Bible dwelling Jews almost as much as they love to provide lists of places mentioned in the Bible.

          Rab: “Hebrew, as a language, was in use in this land two thousand and three thousand years ago, and remained in use to one degree or another, even if primarily in prayer, from then until today.”

          Ancient/Biblical Hebrew is a long-dead language.

          Rab: “The alphabet and language used two thousand years ago are so close to modern Hebrew that an Israeli child can read some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and understand what he reads.”

          Modern Hebrew is intimately linked to Zionism and to the Zionists’ colonial conquest of Palestine.

          Modern Hebrew was developed by the Zionists as a means of achieving their ideological goal of settling in Palestine.

          Modern Hebrew, a language borne and birthed by a repugnant mind-poisoning ideology, enables weak-minded assholes from Brooklyn to believe that they can ascend and become Bible Jews, to do so is their birthright, and that it was their Bubbe who invented the recipe for hummus.

          If an Iberian fledgeling parakeet is taught and could understand Yiddish that was re-lexified with the inflectional system and vocabulary of Hebrew, that parakeet could read and understand everything that an Israeli child can read and understand. Neither the fledgeling nor the child are transformed into ancient Bible dwelling Jews as a side-effect, however.

          Rab: “Jews have not only resided in the Land of Israel for thousands of years, at many points they were the majority population.”

          Ancient Bible dwelling Jews have not only resided in the ancient Bible for millennia, at the time of the 1922, 1931 and 1945 British censuses all colonial-settler immigrants identifying as “Jews” were very much a minority in Palestine.

          Rab: “For example, in the 1800s, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority.”

          If the Uganda Project had been a goer, you Zionists would doubtlessly be boring everyone shitless with your grand statements about how “in the 1800s”, Old Kampala had “a Jewish majority”.

          Rab: “If you read the Muslim traveler al-Muqadeisi, a beloved writer of Edward Said because he used the term Filastin in his writings, he explicitly states that he sees a majority of Jews and Christians in Jerusalem and the Muslim capital of Filastin in Ramallah…and this is in the 10th Century.”

          If you read the Bible backwards while inhaling meth from a bong, Jesus explicitly states that he sees his beloved King David’s palace in the corner of my basement and Boney M buried there… and this is in 1361.

          Rab: “Don’t let the bitter taste in your mouth overwhelm you. Have a piece of fruit or chocolate or something.”

          While watching you project, I prefer cheesy popcorn.

          Reply to Comment
          • Rab

            The discussion ended with my previous comment. Next time, please try some substance.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            The discussion ended the day Zionism enslaved your mind.

            Reply to Comment
    18. Chomsky has a point that might help clarify:

      “Noam Chomsky – Israel’s Actions in Palestine are Much Worse Than Apartheid in South Africa”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czD70xq9blw

      Perhaps Apartheid is not quite fitting after all. But those who react against its usage do so IMO in order to apologize for Israel as just a victim defending itself if not to justify the necessary brutal manner in which the West Bank is being colonialized.

      Reply to Comment
    19. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter