Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

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

Rightwing group publishes Nakba denial booklet

Reheating old propaganda myths and taking historical facts out of context, Im Tirzu’s latest publication claims Nakba is “bullshit”

Members of Rightwing "Im Tirzu" movement at a counter protest to the Tel Aviv Human Rights March (photo: Yossi Gurvitz)

Right wing group Im Tirzu published a new propaganda document (Hebrew PDF) earlier this week, which refreshingly does not claim to be anything else. It is called “Nakba Harta,” literally “Nakba Bullshit,” and is written jointly by IT’s CEO, the convicted criminal Erez Tadmor, and Ar’el Segal, a noted right-wing writer; the document purports to be an expose of the truth about the destruction of Palestine, and is full of the usual Im Tirzu mixture of sleight of hand, fiction, and deceit.

It’s something of an annoyance, seeing that Israeli Hasbara did not evolve since the 1950s: IT’s booklet contains every mildewed point ever made by Zionist and Israeli propagandists. A major part of the pamphlet looks as if it was lifted directly from Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial, which was debunked in the 1980s and which did not deter the famous torture and Israeli advocate (the two often go hand in hand, unfortunately) Alan Dershovitz from presenting it, repackaged and reheated, to American readers.

Segal and Tadmor throw in any Muslim or Arab massacre of Jews they can find throughout history, and as usual use misdirection and white lies. Here are several instances: They note the murder of 500 Libyan Jews during the Holocaust, elegantly ignoring the fact they were murdered not by the Libyans, but by the invading Germans (p. 55); they mention (p. 54) “anti-Jewish riots” in late 19th century Algeria, while conveniently avoiding the fact they were carried out by the French (Algeria was a French colony at the time), and that they were influenced by the Dreyfus trial; They speak of Apion’s blood-libel in Alexandria (p. 56), and astonishingly manage to refrain from noting it took place in the first century AD, i.e. about 600 years before the rise of Islam. The Ottoman Empire, the most important Muslim regime in history, does not fit the narrative, and is therefore not mentioned.

I’ll address three issues with the pamphlet. The first is rather minor: Segal and Tadmor deal, in their last chapter, with the pro-Nazi activities of the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin El Husseini, trying to use him as a way to smear the entire Palestinian national movement as pro-Nazi. This is rather daring, coming from Im Tirzu: The movement is proud of the volkist Avraham “Yair” Stern, to the point of selling t-shirts with his image. Stern’s terrorist organization, known as the Stern Gang, made at least two attempts to reach an alliance with the Nazis, based, among other issues, on their commonly shared ideology – which, as any look at Stern’s political thinking will show (Hebrew), was indeed similar. So, if you’re a Jewish ultra-nationalist and you’re conspiring with the Nazis as they herd Polish Jews into ghettos, Im Tirzu will issue you a kosher certificate.

Snarkiness aside, both the Stern Gang and the El Husseini supporters turned to the Nazis because they were Britain’s most prominent enemies; and Britain was widely hated in the Middle East at the time, since it was a colonial occupier of much of it. Segal and Tadmor mention the 1941 Baghdad pogrom, the Farhud; they fail to note that it was led by a sister fascist movement, which was a part of Iraqi resistance to British presence in the country. For much the same reason – mostly justified hostility towards the British occupier – the two Stern gang assassins, Eliahu Khakim and Eliahu Beit Zuri, who killed British Minister of State in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, become for a short while heroes of the Egyptian nationalist movement. Ignoring the complexities of history and retreating historia lacrymosa is, of course, an old Jewish tradition; Yet, one would still expect a bit more nuance in the 21st century. Not from Im Tirzu, apparently.

The second point is much more important. A central Zionist slogan is “a land without a people for a people without a land”, which basically ignores the existence of Palestinians. Now, following Peters, Im Tirzu tries to convince us that there were no Palestinians prior to the Zionist arrival, and that they showed up only following Jewish immigration in the early 20th century, tempted by the so-called prosperity brought by the Zionists. That is, the 700,000 Palestinians expelled by Israel weren’t refugees at all, since they didn’t live in Palestine all that long, or something of the sort.

What a steaming pile of bullshit. As Prof. Yehoshua Porat noted, while skewering Peters’ book, Palestinian population – like the rest of the Ottoman Empire – began growing in the mid-19th century, following the demographic revolution: Better medicine and a series of new hospitals (some built by the government, some by missionaries) eradicated many of the diseases which caused infant mortality. According to the data of Sergio DellaPergola, the population of western Palestine (i.e., between the Mediterranean and the Jordan) nearly doubled itself from 1800 to 1890: There were 275,000 residents in 1800, and 532,000 in 1890. The Jews were clearly in the minority in Palestine: 7,000 in 1800, 43,000 in 1890. According to his estimates, the population of Palestine was 689,000, of which 94,000 were Jews. Furthermore, Palestinians were already exploring their nationality: The first Arab congress, held in Paris in 1913 as the Ottomans took a dim view of Arab nationality, received 387 telegrams of support. The largest number, 139, came from Palestinians (as quoted in Jonathan Schneer, The Balfour Declaration, location 703 in the Kindle edition).

No historian or chronicler is familiar with a Muslim immigration wave in late 19th century or early 20th century Palestine, and immigration waves tend to be rather noticeable. Furthermore, Asher Ginzburg, an early Zionist leader known as Ahad Ha’am, wrote in “Truth from Eretz Israel” (Hebrew), published in 1891, that

We who live abroad are used to believe that Eretz Israel is now almost wholly a wilderness, an untilled desert, and that anyone who wants to buy land in it may do so freely. But truly, this is not the case. It’s very hard to find, in the whole land, arable fields untilled; just sandy fields or rocky mountains, which is suitable only for orchards, and even this after much work and great expense […] not just the peasants, but the plantation owners too, do not sell lightly good land with no fault.

Later, he notes the existence of a merchant class, and the great railroad project of the Ottomans, which was a likelier catalyst of growth in Palestine than a few Zionist orchard-colonies, abandoned by most of the immigrants. For reasons unknown, even though Ahad Ha’am is generally considered to be a Zionist founding father (unlike, say, Stern), Im Tirzu does not have a Ahad Ha’am shirt. One wonders why.

To make a long story short, the legend of Palestinian refugees not being refugees is an attempt by Zionists to feel good about themselves and avoid responsibility for the crime on which Zionism is based: The uprooting of another people off its lands. This was not an accident and did not happen in the heat of battle: The tragedy of the Palestinian refugees is derived from the fact Israel did not allow them, once the battles were over, to return home. Now, given the time the decision was taken, and the conditions at the time, one may think it was a reasonable decision; but accepting its logic and at the same time denying Israeli responsibility for the creation of the problem demands performing a particular logic trick that only a Hasbara person can do.

The third point is the claim that the Palestinians are responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from the Arab countries, so they should kindly shut up. This claim is ridiculous: The Palestinians didn’t even have their own elected leadership, so claiming a Palestinian peasant who lost his house should be considered responsible for the actions of the Syrian or Egyptian government is merely a more polite version of saying “All these Ay-rabs are the same.” I was not aware that Segal and Tadmor partnered with Azmi Bishara in resuscitating the dying pan-Arabic ideology. One lives and learns.

At the end of the day, what Segal and Tadmor are doing is a sort of holocaust denial – one with much better PR, one which is enthusiastically supported by most of the Israeli public, but a holocaust denial nevertheless. Keep that in mind, the next time some Hasbara representative will bemoan the – deplorable – holocaust denial of much of the Arab world.

Read more in +972 Magazine’s Remembering the Nakba project:

Eitan Bronstein: Nakba Law: Inside Pandora’s Box
Joseph Dana: Occupation & Nakba: Interview with Ariella Azoulay & Adi Ophir
Dahlia Scheindlin: Nakba Law: Is it time for civil disobedience?
Noam Sheizaf: Why Jews need to talk about the Nakba

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. max

      I see little difference between your and their “methodologies”.
      – you ignore the massacres that can’t be “justified” by external influence
      – you refuse to accept the fact that we don’t have enough facts to assess the reasons for the sharp increase in the number of Arabs in Palestine
      – you refer to Palestinian nationality in 1913 when in fact only in the 1920’s we have 1st references to it (as separate from Greater Syria), and an overall acceptance of the identity in the 1960’s
      – There are documents about mass immigration to Palestine, notably one of over 30,000 from Syria
      – You refer to Ahad Ha’am’s note, while forgetting that huge parts of the land were simply not arable, therefore his note may be right but not in contrast to the other claims (let alone the stories from other travelers)
      .
      Finally, I find your Holocaust reference extremely ugly: you dare compare the uprooting of 0.6M to the massacre of 6M?

      Reply to Comment
    2. RichardNYC

      “So, if you’re a Jewish ultra-nationalist and you’re conspiring with the Nazis as they herd Polish Jews into ghettos, Im Tirzu will issue you a kosher certificate.
      Snarkiness aside, both the Stern Gang and the El Husseini supporters turned to the Nazis because they were Britain’s most prominent enemies; and Britain was widely hated in the Middle East at the time, since it was a colonial occupier of much of it.”

      Snarkiness aside? I think you mean “self-contradiction aside”, since you’re imputing holocaust guilt to the Stern gang, based on their attempts to save Jews FROM the Nazis, and then making excuses for Palestinian/Nazi collaboration. Pretty ballsy bad faith argument, must say…

      Reply to Comment
    3. darw retrik

      here are the facts

      thousands of palestiniand JOIND the nazi army and murdered ten of thousands serbian christians

      the Mufti was named SS gruppenfuehrer by Heinrich Himmler and referred to as the “Fuhrer of the Arab World” by Hitler himself.

      The largest Muslim Nazi SS unit was the 13th division, known as Hanjar as well as the Waffen SS division known as Skanderbeg

      Husseini organized in record time Muslim units that went on to massacre hundreds of thousands of Serbian Orthodox Christians. Jacenovac, the third largest death camp, where more than 200,000 people met their death, was run with the aid of al-Husseini. 800,000 Yugoslavian civilians were murdered by Muslims many of which were recruited in palestine

      Reply to Comment
    4. Darw, if that is your real name, your first point at least in not fact but propaganda. Also, Jacenovac was not “the third largest death camp”.

      Reply to Comment
    5. I think you mean “self-contradiction aside”, since you’re imputing holocaust guilt to the Stern gang, based on their attempts to save Jews FROM the Nazis

      Richard, the Stern gang had nothing to do with attempt to save Jews, as their ideological leader Eldad said later; he said the organization was concerned with creating a state, not the fate of the Jewish people. Note also that the gang tried to convince the Nazis it could organize a militia for them. Irgun and Hagana tried to save Jews; the Stern gang did not. Furthermore, one needs to remember the Stern gang is an Irgun faction which broke with the Irgun because the latter has decided to freeze anti-British activities after the beginning of the Second World War. They were decidedly not anti-Nazi. In fact, rather the opposite.

      My point is not that they had any “holocaust guilt”, whatever that means; my point is they were Nazi collaborators (admittedly, failed ones), and that to castigate the Palestinian collaborators while at the same breath hallowing the Sternists (and particularly Sterin himself) takes breathtaking chutzpah.

      Reply to Comment
    6. max

      Yossi, Wikipedia is not always right, but what it describes is close to what Darw writes:
      .
      “Throughout World War II, al-Husayni … He recruited Muslim volunteers for the German armed forces operating in the Balkans. Beginning in 1941, al-Husayni visited Bosnia, and convinced Muslim leaders that a Muslim S.S. division would be in the interest of Islam. In spite of these and other propaganda efforts, “only half of the expected 20,000 to 25,000 Muslims volunteered.”[151] Al-Husayni was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units. The largest was the 13th “Handschar” division of 21,065 men, which conducted operations against Communist partisans in the Balkans from February 1944,[152] committing numerous atrocities against their traditional ethnic rivals the local Christian Serbs.[140]

      In 1942, al-Husayni helped organize Arab students and North African emigres in Germany into the “Arabisches Freiheitkorps,” an Arab Legion in the German Army that hunted down Allied parachutists in the Balkans and fought on the Russian front.[140]

      On March 1, 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husayni said: ‘Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”

      I’d say its quite an active, participative role, wouldn’t you?

      Reply to Comment
    7. max

      I also found
      1) “In their book the researchers [Klaus Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers] concluded that, “the most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem.””
      2) From the Nuremberg trials by Dieter Wisliceny, Adolf Eichman’s deputy:”The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichman and Himmler in the execution of the plan. He was one of Eichman’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the exterminaiton measures.” (BN, 193)[from hmwatch]
      .
      I think that a comparison to the mufti cannot be done in good faith: what do you say?

      Reply to Comment
    8. Ali

      “here are the facts
      thousands of palestinian and JOIND the nazi army and murdered ten of thousands serbian christians”

      and guess what?, there were 150,000 Jews who also served in the Hitler’s Army. does that make them DIRECTLY responsible for the 6 Million that died?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDpptCdYY0

      Reply to Comment
    9. max

      Ali, most scholars agree that:
      1) There were much less than 100,000 Jews who joined the Wehrmacht
      2) They were partial Jews (according to Nazi rules) who wanted to escape the fate of the Jews
      3) They joined the Wehrmacht, not the SS
      4) Palestinians were pro-Germany mostly because they were anti-UK
      5) The Mufti was another story – a real Nazi. How many followers he had is debatable, but he was The Mufti! (ironically selected to the post by a Jew…)
      So not very comparable.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Ali

      “There were much less than 100,000 Jews who joined the Wehrmacht”

      BULL!!!…the Number is 150,000

      and even if I did, So then why are you judging the Palestinians, if your fellows jews Joined the Reich’s warmachine?

      amazing how you people find all sort of excuses for your fellow Jew, but not extend the same to others.

      All the other reasons you put down are red herrings. I don’t care if they were half Jews, I don’t care if they were escaping the “fate” of their brethrens, and I certainly don’t care if they were not “pro-Germany” (As if!)

      What matters is the following,

      1- (some) Jews fought for Hitler
      2- (some) Jews assisted in the Holocaust
      3- Some earned medals, which hardly suggest they were forced to do it.

      I’m not buying!!.

      Reply to Comment
      • Larry A. Singleton

        Bottom line: What community do you know of dances in the streets and hands out candy upon learning of the brutal slaughter of a family of Jews? Including babies. Personally, I wouldn’t want people like this as my “neighbors”. All the Jew haters and self-hating Jews rag on about the “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinians and the “occupation” of Gaza. Israel Self-Cleansed themselves completely out of Gaza only to see it turn into a genocidal terror state…”occupied” by a brutal dictatorship who murders anyone saying a bad word about their regime. If given the “West Bank” it would be, in reality, Ethnically Cleansed of all Jews.

        Reply to Comment
    11. max

      Ali, where did I judge the Palestinians?
      Where did I say that the Mischling (as defined by the Nazi) were forced to?
      Is that how you always read?
      You may also bear in mind when coming up with twisted ideas that after 2,000 years of living side by side, a huge percentage of Europeans have some Jewish blood (and vice versa): why keep with Hitler’s definition? Why not say that it’s Jews that committed the Holocaust? Aren’t there claims that Hitler had Jewish blood?

      Reply to Comment
    12. Ali

      You ARE indirectly Judging (or better put, ASSISTING Darw in Judging). The only reason you bring up this nonsense about the Mufti and Nazism, is to justify whatever historical crimes you committed against the Palestinians and to reinforce both the persecution complex, and most importantly make Palestinians EQUAL with Nazis

      If I was to do the same thing, ie EQUATE Israelis with Nazis, you would call it Anti-semitism. People would be screaming bloody murder.

      The Mufti assissted the Nazis?…Big Deal!…so did the Jews of Europe (even if I was to accept the Mischling argument, Being born to a Jewish mother still makes you a Jew)

      I’m sick and tired of people screaming “the Mufti did this…the Mufti did that”….the Mufti is DEAD, Nazism is DEAD….GET OVER IT!

      and if you can’t, then I too should have the right to judge the Jewish people about their participation in the Wehrmacht, or SS (not that it makes any difference for me which is which!)

      “Why not say that it’s Jews that committed the Holocaust? Aren’t there claims that Hitler had Jewish blood?”

      I never said Committed. I said ASSISTED in committing. Big difference.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Mitchell Cohen

      More facts: 1) there was NO sovereign “Palestine” that was “replaced” or “displaced” by the founding of Israel. 2) It was NOT the founding of Israel which caused Arab refugees, but the war launched by the Arabs against the newborn State of Israel (which was recognized by the UN). If the Arabs had not launched a war against Israel, the Arabs would not have lost their properties 3) even according to the link provided above (assuming Wikipedia is trustworthy, as anybody and their uncle can edit it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine
      by 1840, the Jews were the largest religious group in Jerusalem and, by 1880, they were the majority in the city 4) also according to the above link, by 1905, 60% of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine (i.e. the majority of them) were born there. 5) Jews were NOT allowed to own land until 1873, which had a lot to do with the figures that Sergio DellaPergola and Prof. Yehoshua Porat come up with in their studies. One can also see from this link that, as opposed to what the Israel bashers like to portray, Jews were hardly treated as equals in the “good old days” before the First and Second Aliyot. Lastly, I would like to ask, what proof is there that Jews actually pushed Arabs off private properties or villages, as opposed to draining swamp areas that no one else wanted anything to do with. Did the Arabs own the endless miles of stretches of barren land between the dotting villages across Mandatory Palestine? I think not….

      Reply to Comment
    14. Mitchell Cohen

      Here are some more FACTS: 1) There was NO sovereign “Palestine” before the founding of the State of Israel, nor to this day, so Israel did NOT “displace” a Palestinian country 2) It was NOT the founding of Israel that resulted in Arab refugees, but the war that the Arabs launched on the new born State of Israel (founded with permission by the UN) that resulted in refugees. If the Arabs had accepted the partition plan, no one would have lost their property/ies and the Arabs would have had their (another) State 3) According to the link provided above (assuming you trust Wikipedia as accurate, as anyone and their uncle can edit it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine the Jews were the largest religious group in Jerusalem by 1840 and the majority by 1880 4) also according to the above link, by 1905 the majority of Jews (60.6%) living in Mandatory Palestine were born in Mandatory Palestine 5) Jews were NOT allowed to own land in Mandatory Palestine until 1873: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws
      As populations were recorded according to who served in the Ottoman Army and, in order to serve in the Ottoman Army, you had to own land, one can see how this would influence the census figures provided by Sergio DellaPergola and Prof. Yehoshua Porat. One can also see, in this link, that the description of “the good old days” before the First and Second Aliyot, when Jews and Muslims lived side by side as equals and in peace is a myth, as Jews were considered second class citizens and were not allowed to own land, hence the need for the 1873 emancipation act. Lastly, I want to ask who the endless miles of barren land between the villages belonged to? Certainly not the villages tens of miles away and certainly not to a sovereign “Palestine”. Is their any proof that the Jews ran the Arabs of their villages, rather than drain mosquito infested swamp lands that NOBODY wanted anything to do with?

      Reply to Comment
    15. annie

      max, please do not ever use wiki for a source on israel or palestine. google ‘wiki zionist editing’ and ‘yeshiva’. find another source, no excuse.

      the recent revisionist historical renderings of al-Husseini attempting to resurrect him as hitler’s partner is a non starter.

      Reply to Comment
    16. annie

      yossi, all and all i’d say this is good news. it’s been years of nakba silence and now the rightwing is fighting it with joan peters, what a joke. the truth will prevail. this creates another opportunity for exposure. israel cannot keep up the myth facade forever, better to come to grips with the truth because eventually logic will trump denial.

      Reply to Comment
    17. Mitchell Cohen

      Annie, so I guess the author of the above article using Wiki to prove his case is unacceptable as well. What’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

      Reply to Comment
    18. directrob

      mitchel,
      Wiki is a very good source about the Israeli conflict, the “discussion” pages contain loads of information and key words to find original articles.
      .
      All the same before citing Wikipedia about anything Israel/Palestine related I would always go back to original sources.
      .
      But anyway to deny the Nakba or put the blame with the Palestinians is an absolute non starter. It is just an attempt to make easy things sound complicated.

      Reply to Comment
    19. Mitchell Cohen

      DirectRob, Wiki can’t be a good source for one poster because of their POV, while for another poster who has an opposing POV, it is a bad source. If the author of this article is using Wiki as a source and another poster uses Wiki in turn, then another poster can’t complain about the 2nd poster using Wiki.

      At any rate, it is also an absolute non-starter to say that the founding of Israel “resulted” in a Nakba. Israel was founded with the UN’s acceptance. It is interesting how Israel’s detractors always like to quote the UN like the Tanach, but then call Israel “illegitimate” when the UN accepted Israel’s founding (but that is another story). The Arabs started a war with the new born state. It is this war which resulted in a Nakba. If the Arabs did not declare a war on the new born state, then a) no one would have lost their property/ies b) their would have been an (another) Arab state alongside Israel today.

      Reply to Comment
    20. Thanks for the great article Yossi. One should also note that Im Tirtzu is trying to copy-paste Israel/Palestine talking points from its US hub to the Israelis, who actually live there and know the truth for themselves.

      Therefore, you shouldn’t be surprised to find more of what we described in Europe and America as “hasbara” material seeping into your comment section.

      Reply to Comment
    21. Mitchell Cohen

      @Ali, “So then why are you judging the Palestinians, if your fellows jews Joined the Reich’s warmachine?

      amazing how you people find all sort of excuses for your fellow Jew, but not extend the same to others.”
      MY RESPONSE: So you are comparing those stuck in the middle of the hell known as the Holocaust, who where trying to survive in anyway possible (which unfortunately, at times, included turning against their own people) to those who had no lifesaving reason to join the Nazis. Pleeeeeze, how can you be so obtuse?

      Reply to Comment
    22. max

      @Ali, my point about the mufti was addressing Yossi’s text, not Darw. Read my points again to understand my view on the Palestinians on this subject.
      .
      @Annie & Gahgeer: I’m sure Yossi enjoys your accolades, but can you also address the content? Annie, you’ll find that the sources I presented aren’t only Wikipedia, and those I found on WP are well referenced
      .
      @Director: what’s the Nakba to you? The acceptance of 600,000 Arab refugees or the blame of Israel alone for their grief?

      Reply to Comment
    23. Piotr Berman

      It is clear that Jewish extremists like Stern Gang did not collaborated with Nazis, but not for the lack of trying. The larger pattern is that ANYWHERE where there was a pre-existing conflict, Nazis could recruit some collaborators. Thus Baltic people and Ukrainians had a conflict with Russians/Soviets, Slovaks had a conflict with Czechs, Croats and Bosnian Muslim with Serbs etc., Indians with the British etc. (Some nationalist Indians collaborated with Japanese Imperial Army.)

      So Nazis had to pick. They did not pick Stern Gang. They did not pick much of Arabs either, as they were aligned with colonial powers: Vichy France and Italy.

      It seems that former Grand Mufti helped in recruiting Muslim Yugoslavs. Somewhat more fantastic version suggests that he also influenced the planning of the Holocaust, a natural conjecture given Nazi habit of soliciting advise from lesser nations — anything wrong in that picture? They could as well ask some high-ranked Brahmins, as they adopted one of sacred Brahman symbols.

      I actually compiled several Zionists legends into a coherent theory: Palestine was virtually devoid of habitation, as attested by Mark Twain and other authorities. However, in a larger area there were many descendant of Amelek, who are genetically disposed to hate Jews. Upon the news of new immigration of Jews to Palestine, Amelek started to immigrate there too, for the sole reason to cause trouble to the Chosen People — as was Amelek habit from time immemorial.

      Reply to Comment
    24. David

      How do we know that after this quote ? :
      Reheating old propaganda myths and taking historical facts out of context, Im Tirzu’s latest publication claims Nakba is “bullshit”

      That the far left isn’t just full of myths and no context.
      I mean why should I trust 972 more than Tirzu ? Because the far left has more heart?

      Apart from the 20 odd photos that are passed around about the flight in ’48, there is little to go by.
      My guess is that the Arabs, once they are all fully functioning democracies, will open their archives ( assuming someone wrote stuff down back then ) and we will be able to see and read what their orders were and who gave the order to radio broadcast to the Palestinians that they should move out of Israel and then return once all the Jews had been killed.

      DANNECKER
      takes the prize for uninformed anti-semitism ( ” the inherent racism of judaism ” ), only at 972.
      Far Leftists love to talk about Judaism when they really know rather very little, or nothing about Judaism.

      ANNIE
      I saw photographs of al-Husseini inspecting Bosnian ( Muslim ) Third Reich Troops lately. Al-Husseini was also photographed shooting a rifle and in the company of various Third Reich dignitaries. I dare say there are about as many photographs of the Mufti with the Nazi’s as there are
      of the Nakba ( leaving those photoshopped out ).

      Reply to Comment
    25. directrob

      @Mitchel,
      Your process description is inaccurate but that does not matter. Like I said you just try to make things complicated. After a war normally the fugitives return. Here they were not allowed to return and even their villages were destroyed which created the Nakba.
      .
      @max,
      Israel should accept the Nakba as something they helped to create and stop denying history.

      Reply to Comment
    26. David

      @DirectRob
      “After a war normally the fugitives return”, reread your European history and when you are done with say the last 500 years, go on to South East Asia in the 20th Century. You will see that fugitives hardly ever return. Just ask the 12 Million German speaking refugees after 1945, or the Vietnamese boat people or the Hmong, the Chinese ( Asia wide ), or the Bosnians, Serbs, Kurds, Armenians yada yada yada.

      @ANNIE
      are you from mondoweiss? If you are, please keep in mind that this is an IL website and that Holocaust comparisons, although daily at mondoweiss, are frowned upon here.

      Reply to Comment
    27. max

      Director, please use the next few lines to insert the names fitting “After a war normally the fugitives return” to the conquered land

      Reply to Comment
    28. max

      Director, I trust the all Israelis acknowledge the 600,000 or so refugees of their independence day and that an unknown part of them were forced out by the Israeli troops.
      That’s history.
      What they don’t accept is that it’s their fault to have won the war, or to resume life as if nothing happened

      Reply to Comment
    29. max

      independence war, not day…

      Reply to Comment
    30. RichardNYC

      @Yossi
      “My point is not that they had any “holocaust guilt”, whatever that means”
      —->More classic 972 doublespeak – I think any intelligent person can see that your “Snarkiness” implicates the Stern gang in the holocaust:

      “So, if you’re a Jewish ultra-nationalist and you’re conspiring with the Nazis as they herd Polish Jews into ghettos”
      GIVE ME A BREAK YOSSI!
      “Richard, the Stern gang had nothing to do with attempt to save Jews”
      right, because the Jewish state they were trying to establish wouldn’t have been a refuge for European Jews
      “that to castigate the Palestinian collaborators while at the same breath hallowing the Sternists (and particularly Sterin himself) takes breathtaking chutzpah.”
      Not all since, unless you don’t see the difference between Stern’s attempt to create a refuge for Jews, and the Palestinians’ attempt to exterminate them. This is really really feeble Yossi…

      Reply to Comment
    31. RichardNYC

      @Yossi
      While we’re talking about WWII, don’t you think its SO hypocritical for a British person to criticize Italian Fascists for the their alliance with Hitler after Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler? I mean, forget the Blitz and all that, just focus on the fact that Chamberlain talked with Hitler, its not important why or for what purpose…

      Reply to Comment
    32. RichardNYC

      “You might fool the **** in the league office, but you don’t fool Jesus. This bush league psyche-out stuff. Laughable, man – ha ha! …”

      -The Jesus

      Reply to Comment
    33. Mitchell Cohen

      DirectRob:Your process description is inaccurate but that does not matter. Like I said you just try to make things complicated.

      Mitchell: What is so complicated about Israel being founded with the UN’s acceptance? The same culprits who always like to quote the UN and their resolutions to bash Israel, reject the smoking gun – that Israel’s establishment was ACCEPTED by the UN. So, the Arabs were right in declaring war on the newborn state of Israel because they didn’t like it? YOU are the one making things complicated.

      DirectRob: After a war normally the fugitives return. Here they were not allowed to return and even their villages were destroyed which created the Nakba.

      Mitchell: Another poster addressed the above claim, so I have nothing to add.

      Reply to Comment
    34. Mitchell

      DirectRob:Your process description is inaccurate but that does not matter. Like I said you just try to make things complicated.

      Mitchell: What is so complicated about Israel being founded with the UN’s acceptance? The same culprits who always like to quote the UN and their resolutions to bash Israel, reject the smoking gun – that Israel’s establishment was ACCEPTED by the UN. So, the Arabs were right in declaring war on the newborn state of Israel because they didn’t like it? YOU are the one making things complicated.

      DirectRob: After a war normally the fugitives return. Here they were not allowed to return and even their villages were destroyed which created the Nakba.

      Mitchell: Another poster addressed the above claim quite eloquently, so I have nothing to add.

      Reply to Comment
    35. directrob

      @Mitchel,
      Some fact and fiction, it is just to show that things in detail were complicated.

      Nov 29, 1947 UN General Assembly partition resolution
      Unofficial war
      May 14, 1948 declaration of independence.
      May 15, 1948 Arab states attack.
      Jan 7, 1949 End war
      May 11, 1949 Israel UN member.
      .
      In April-May 1948 the plan Dalet was in operation the destruction of enemy villages and the depopulation of towns and villages started. There was already a large Palestinian fugitive problem before the Arab states joined the civil war and made it a full blown war. These states could not join earlier because the British where still present.
      .
      The security counsel had still to decide about the partition resolution and its implementation in May 48. Israels establishment was accepted by some (very important) states not by the UN until 49.
      .
      My resources here are for a change “Palestinian”.
      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
      .
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Khalidi,%20Plan%20Dalet%20Revisited.pdf
      .
      http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/debates/Khalidi,%20Benny%20Morris%20and%20Before%20Their%20Diaspora.pdf
      .
      About the point of forces migration I am lazy:
      See http://www.fmreview.org/

      Nr 26 had a lot about Israel and Palestinians
      http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR26/FMR26full.pdf

      Reply to Comment
    36. max

      Directrob, you’re correct, things are complicated and for many the notion of “narrative” implies we don’t need to care about facts – interpretation becomes history.
      I assume that as you say, at some point – when the dream of a peaceful separation has been broken – the Israeli leadership decided that transfer is the only viable solution. I can’t blame them. Legal? Questionable, but the Geneva Convention was written afterwards. Moral? Depends on your point of view, remembering that the losing side initiated the armed conflict. Standard practice at that time? Absolutely.
      Legal systems have to be just, and practical. I’m not familiar with any precedence to what’s being asked of Israel: are you? No – you had ample opportunities to answer this question.
      BTW, the legal justification for Israel’s and Jordan’s was set by the League of Nations in 1922; Jordan was carved out of the original Balfour declaration. The actual execution of the decision was delayed by a quarter of a century, already by the UN…
      We can’t discuss here Khalid’s claims, but point at the obvious: we have no way of knowing what would’ve happened had the Arabs not attacked Israel. They did, and the problem was created.
      Remember: if your partner demands 100 and you only 80, it doesn’t necessarily make you a moderate. If after a failed aggression you bring the situation back to its initial state, you also are responsible for the next aggression.
      The bottom line is: if Israel has the right to exist, it also has the right to defend itself. The fact that tragedies ensue is the sad universal effect of such conflicts. Should Israel cede land for the creation of a Palestinian state? Yes, in my opinion, but not in a suicidal way. The differences amongst the Israeli majority are how to assess and manage this risk (a basic duty of governments, not of bloggers), and I think that Trust is the keyword.

      Reply to Comment
    37. directrob

      @max, Lets go for broke: Rwanda
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
      .
      “Moral? Depends on your point of view …” remembering that the losing side killed 800,000.
      .
      For the rest visit “The Magnes Zionist” site …

      Reply to Comment
    38. max

      directrob, sorry, I lost you here: what’s with the Rwanda massacre and the possible transfer of people that instigated war?

      Reply to Comment
    39. directrob

      Max, the simplified and naive version:
      In Rwanda the Hutu started killing Tutsi. Afterwards they were forced to flee (what created a huge fugitive problem). Later they were invited/allowed/forced back into Rwanda and became part of society again.

      Reply to Comment
    40. directrob

      oops.. refugee problem

      Reply to Comment
    41. max

      A remarkable event indeed, exactly because it is contrary to common world precedence (btw, “forced” is the right choice). I hope they manage to really get over their problems.
      But that’s a weak analogy, as their war was a civil, ethnic based one, not a national struggle.
      A somewhat closer analogy would be the population transfer between India and Pakistan (14M?).
      Trying to force Israel to be yet another guinea pig of cohabitation (see ex-Yugoslavia) isn’t an attractive proposition.
      .
      And let’s not forget the other anomaly of the situation: the perpetuation, by both the Arab countries and UNRWA, of their plight. Their thinking is national, not humanitarian.

      Reply to Comment
    42. directrob

      If the conflict is not ethnic, why talk about cohabitation. 1946-1949 was an ethnic conflict, I would say THE example of an ethnic conflict.
      .
      Now you seem to want to show that what is the same should live together or maybe rather that Palestinians cannot live together with Israeli Jews. I think this is not true. All ethnic boundaries are artificial.

      Reply to Comment
    43. David

      @DIRECTROB
      “All ethnic boundaries are artificial” , you are kidding ? Had we no boundaries, there’d be no ethnicities.
      What ya smoking’ Bobby? You wanna hug, like in Berkley ? Man oh man, I begin to see why you have such issues grasping the matter at hand.
      The issue is certainly one of nationalism, since the Jews are a people. You need to understand the basics of Zionism, before you jump into the frey. If you have no sincere understanding of Zionism and how it came about all discourse is futile. Kinda like mental masturbation, the core of the far left.

      Reply to Comment
    44. Mitchell Cohen

      Reminds me of when dovish Amos Oz was visiting in Europe (this was about a decade or so ago, give or take), and someone asked him why the Israelis can’t just create one bi-national state, get along, and get it over with. Without blinking and eye, Oz retorted, why can’t the Norwegians and Swedish just form a bi-national state and get it over with, as they basically speak the same language, share the same heritage, culture, religion, etc. The other guy responded that he [Oz] obviously didn’t understand the Norwegians and Swedish. So much for post-nationalism or post-ethnicism.

      Reply to Comment
    45. directrob

      Mitchel,
      Great diversion, but it did not answer the question.
      The answer was of course: Because we Jews wanted a Jewish state, we kicked most others out. Now that we captured the rest we do not want them to take over again by means of a bi-national state. Although we prefer them to go we reserved 3 enclaves where they can live, the rest of Israel will remain ours forever.

      Reply to Comment
    46. Click here to load previous comments