The "Palestinian" Myth - A view from the Arab Perspective


By Jon_i_Cohen
April 1, 2010
Share

In the Arabs own words there has never been a Palesinian Arab national identity or people.
(With thanks to) - Dr Harry Mandlebaum who writes the following, using soley Arab, Muslim, and foreign sources. Jewish / Israeli sources were deliberately left out to avoid accusations of bias.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Arabs in the Holy Land. Historically, a "Palestinian" people never existed. The English name "Palestinian", to describe the local Arab population, was invented AFTER the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. These Arabs do not even have a native name to describe themselves in their own Arabic language. The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land have migrated to Palestine and invaded the land after 1917, from neighboring Arab countries. There is only one possible solution to the "Palestinians" desire for a homeland - let them return to where they came from - to where they lived earlier for hundreds or thousands of years - to their real homeland in their original Arab countries.
Unknown to most of the world population, the origin of the "Palestinian" Arabs' claim to the Holy Land spans a period of a meager 30 years - a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of years of the region's rich history.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Muslim Arabs in the Holy Land. By contrast, the Jews, despite 2000 years of persecution and forced conversions by various conquerors, have throughout most of history been the majority population there. In Jerusalem Jews were always the largest demographic group, except for periods when conquerors specifically threw them out and prevented them from returning.
When General Allenby, the commander of the British military forces, conquered Palestine in 1917/1918, only a few thousand Muslim Arabs resided in the Holy Land. Most of the Arabs were Christians, and most of the Muslims in the area either came from Turkey under the Ottoman Empire, or were the descendants of Jews and Christians who were forcefully converted to Islam by the Muslim conquerors. These Muslims were not of Arab origin. Most references to Arabs in Palestine before 1917 refer to the Christian Arabs, not to the Muslims.
It is important to note that estimates and censuses conducted by the Muslim conquerors were biased. Therefore, the only reliable data is provided by non-Muslim sources. Tourists and politicians, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, have documented their observations of the population in the Holy Land beginning more that a thousand years ago. Let's start at the early days and continue into the Ottoman period:
The historian James Parkes wrote: "During the first century after the Arab conquest [670-740 CE], the caliph and governors of Syria and the Holy Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons."
In year 985 the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained: "the mosque is empty of worshipers... The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population" (The entire city of Jerusalem had only one mosque?).
In 1377, Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable Arab historians, wrote: "Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years... It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement".
In 1695-1696, the Dutch scholar and cartographer, Adriaan Reland (Hadriani Relandi) , wrote reports about visits to the Holy Land. (There are those who claim that he did not personally visit the Holy land but collected reports from other visitors.) He was fluent in Hebrew and Arabic. He documented visits to many locations. He writes: The names of settlements were mostly Hebrew, some Greek, and some Latin-Roman. No settlement had an original Muslim-Arab name with a historical root in its location. Most of the land was empty, desolate, and the inhabitants few in number and mostly concentrated in Jerusalem, Acco, Tzfat, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza. Most of the inhabitants were Jews and the rest Christians. There were few Muslims, mostly nomad Bedouins. The Arabs were predominantly Christians with a tiny minority of Muslims. In Jerusalem there were approximately 5000 people, mostly Jews and some Christians. In Nazareth there were approximately 700 people - all Christians. In Gaza there were approximately 550 people - half of them Jews and half Christians. Um-El-Phachem was a village of 10 families - all Christians. The only exception was Nablus with 120 Muslims from the Natsha family and approximately 70 Shomronites.
In 1835 Alphonse de Lamartine wrote: "Outside the city of Jerusalem, we saw no living object, heard no living sound. . .a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, in the highways, in the country."
In 1844, William Thackeray writes about the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem: "Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride."
In 1857, the British consul in Palestine, James Finn, reported: "The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."
In 1866, W.M. Thomson writes: "How melancholy is this utter desolation. Not a house, not a trace of inhabitants, not even shepherds, to relieve the dull monotony ... Much of the country through which we have been rambling for a week appears never to have been inhabited, or even cultivated; and there are other parts, you say, still more barren."
In 1867, Mark Twain - Samuel Clemens, the famous author of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer", toured the Holy Land. This is how he described the land: "There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent; not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings ... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
In 1874, Reverend Samuel Manning wrote: "But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude.... Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter -- "the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants." (Jeremiah, ch.44 v.22)
In 1892, B. W. Johnson writes: "In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life... A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted... I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us."
In 1913, a British report, by the Palestinian Royal Commission, quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea: "The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the [Jewish] Yabna village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."
As we can see, throughout history, as documented by Arab historians and by foreign observers before 1917, the land was desolate; there were practically no Muslim Arabs in the cities outside of Jerusalem (except 120 Muslims in Nablus); and the number of Muslim Arabs (other than Ottoman Muslims or Christian Arabs) was minuscule, most of them nomadic Bedouins. The difference between these multiple authentic accounts and the falsified Muslim-Arab propaganda is huge, almost beyond imagination.
When the Holy Land was taken from the Ottomans by the British, it was no longer under Muslim control. The Quran commands Muslims to take land away from non-Muslims, including land which they have never trodden on before. Following the British conquest of the Holy land, the Muslim Arabs embarked on a massive immigration into the Holy Land, fulfilling their religious obligation to capture as much foreign land as possible.The following accounts describe the massive Arab immigration after 1918:
In 1930/31, Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote about the Arabs in Palestine: "We found it inhabited by fellahin (Arab farmers) who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria... Large areas were uncultivated... The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbors, the bedouin (Arab nomads)."
The British Hope-Simpson Commission recommended, in 1930, "Prevention of illicit immigration" to stop the illegal Arab immigration from neighboring Arab countries.
The British Governor of the Sinai (1922-36) reported in the Palestine Royal Commission Report: "This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria."
The governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey El Hurani, admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over 30,000 Syrians from Houran had moved to Palestine.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Holy Land, noted in 1939 that “far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”
The Arab population in the Holy Land increased only because of their massive immigration from neighboring Arab countries. Before 1918, when the Arab immigration started, only a minuscule number of Muslim Arabs lived in the Holy Land, practically all of them in Jerusalem. This is why it is so difficult to find an old-age Muslim-Arab whose grandparents were born in the Holy Land.
The Quran explicitly encourages lying and deception if it helps Muslims achieve a desired goal . To deny the massive invasion of the Holy Land by foreign Muslims, the falsified Muslim-Arab propaganda claims that it is a myth. If it is indeed a myth, how can anyone explain the following simple observations?
The grandparents of the author's wife were born in the Holy Land in the 19th century. They saw with their own eyes how empty the land was at the time. They also lived through and experienced first-hand the British conquest and the Arab's massive invasion of the land that started in 1918. This invasion lasted for only 30 years, and ended in 1948 with the evacuation of the British from the land and the declaration of the state of Israel.
The family names of many Arabs who now occupy the Holy Land reveal their country of origin: Masri (from Egypt ), Iraqi (from Iraq), Tarabulsi (from Tarabulus-Tripoli in Lebanon), Hourani (from Houran in Syria), Husseini (from Jordan), and Saudi (from Saudi Arabia).
Following the publication of an earlier version of this article, the author received an email message from a reader who used to work with Arabs in Gaza and in various villages in the West Bank in the 1970's. In his email the reader describes friendly discussions about family history with his Arab co-workers. Most of the co-workers had grandfathers who immigrated to the Holy Land from neighboring countries.
When Churchill said that “the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.” was he lying? Churchill was not a Muslim...
The name "Palestina" is a Latin-Roman name based on the Hebrew Biblical name of the ancient "Philistines" -- "Plishtim" in Hebrew. The translation of this name to English is: "invaders". The Philistines arrived from the Mediterranean islands near Greece and invaded the land about 4000 years ago . The Philistines are extinct since approximately 2000 years ago, and have no ancestral or historical relationship to Arabs. Before 1917, during the 400-years rule of the Ottoman empire, the Ottomans did not call the Holy Land "Palestina". The British decided to renew this ancient name and called the land "Palestine". The local Arabs never called themselves "Palestinians", not even during the British mandate. Both Arab and British leaders referred to them only as "Arabs". For example: The Hope-Simpson report published by the British in 1930, contains the phrase "the number of Palestinian unemployed, whether Arab, Jew or other...". "Palestinian" was used only as an adjective in reference to the location and also included Jews. The Arab inhabitants were always referred to as "Arabs". The word "palestinians" does not appear anywhere in this report. "Palestinian Arabs", "Palestinian Jews", and "Palestinian Christians" were common terms. But, "Palestinians", as a noun, before 1948, was not yet invented.
After 30 years of invasion, following the end of the British mandate and the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arabs recognized the fact that they invaded foreign land and invented for themselves a name in English -- "Palestinians". If the British were to call the land "New England", and the local Arabs were to call themselves "English" would they automatically become English? It is important to emphasize that the concept of a "Palestinian" to describe the local Arab residents was invented by the Arabs AFTER the declaration of the state of Israel. This group of Arabs who started calling themselves "the Palestinian nation" after 1948, does not have an original name in their native Arabic language. Is there any nation in the world which does not have a name in its original native language? The Arabs who invaded the Holy Land do not have a name in their native Arabic language because they are not, and have never been, a unified group or a nation.
Historically, a "Palestinian" people never existed. The fact is that the Arabs who now call themselves by the English name "Palestinians" don't even know what their name is or should be in Arabic. Even Arab leaders and historians have admitted that a "Palestinian" people never existed. For example:
In 1937, the Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Peel Commission: "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. Palestine is alien to us."
In 1946, Princeton's Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "It's common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history."
In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The 'Palestinian people' does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel."
Joseph Farah, an Arab-American journalist, writes: "The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity."
Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist acknowledged the lie he was fighting for: “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian? ... we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians. They removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag.”
The Syrian dictator Hafez Assad said: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity".
Dr. Azmi Bishara, a notable leader of the Arabs in Israel, who fought against the Israeli "occupation", said in a TV interview: "There is no Palestinian nation. It's a colonial invention. When were there any Palestinians?"
The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land have migrated to Palestine and invaded the land after 1917, from neighboring Arab countries, predominantly from areas now known as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. None of these countries existed as nations prior to 1913. They were nothing but a disorganized collection of tribes, constantly terrorizing each other, trying to seize land from their neighbors. Unfortunately, those Arab invaders, imported into the Holy Land their age-old "culture" of terrorizing neighbors to seize land. Many of them were social outcasts and criminals who could not find jobs in their own countries so they searched for their luck elsewhere. Some of them were accepted by the British regime as a source of cheap labor and were allowed to settle on unoccupied Jewish land. Even Yassir Arafat, the leader of the PLO, is not a native of the Holy Land. He called himself a "Palestinian refugee" but spoke Arabic with an Egyptian dialect. He was born in 1929 in Cairo, Egypt. He served in the Egyptian army, studied in the University of Cairo, and lived in Cairo until 1956. He then moved to Saudi-Arabia and founded the Al-Fatah terror organization, the precursor to the PLO, in Kuwait in 1958, together with his Saudi-Arabian friends. How exactly does that constitute a "Palestinian refugee"? Being born in 1929 in Cairo, he cannot even be considered a son of Palestinian refugees (there were no refugees in 1929). Arafat must have been a good student of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim religion, who said in the Quran: "War is deception".[16]
In their propaganda, the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" consistently demand that Israel and the world recognize their "pre-1948" rights. That's about 60 years ago. Mysteriously, they are never willing to add another 60 years to their "historical" claims on the Holy Land. They know very well that doing so will send them back to where they came from - Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Years ago, during negotiations with the, so-called, "Palestinians", a Israeli negotiator proposed to revise a mention of their claim of "pre-1948" rights and replace it with "pre-1917". The "Palestinians" vehemently opposed. Now we know why.
If there is anyone who still believes that a "Palestinian" nation ever existed before the end of the British mandate and the founding of the state of Israel, would they please be kind enough to answer when was it founded and by whom? What was its name in Arabic (not in Latin-English)? What was its form of government? What were its borders? Name one top "Palestinian" leader before Arafat? Which country ever recognized its existence and when? In which library or museum can we find any of its literature, coins, or historical artifacts? The answer to all these questions is "nil". As stated by Zahir Muhsein: "The 'Palestinian' people does not exist."
Some Arabs consider themselves the descendants of Abraham, the forefather of the Jewish nation. Ironically, if not for Muhammad's study of the Bible, the Arabs would not have known of the existence of Abraham. Muhammad invented the Muslim religion in the 7th century AD, in Saudi Arabia. He studied the Bible in order to be better equipped in his attempts to persuade the Jews to follow his newly invented religion. When the Jews refused, he dictated the stories of the Quran (the Muslim bible) to his students, and filled it with his own imaginary accounts of Biblical events. (Muhammad himself did not know how to read or write.) He even took the liberty to change the God-given day of rest, Saturday - the Sabbath. Since Sunday was already taken by the Christians, he picked Friday as the next-best Muslim day of rest.
Muhammad never visited Jerusalem and the Holy Land, and did not consider them important enough to mention their name in the Quran even once. By comparison, Mecca and Medina, the only two Muslim holy cities, are mentioned in the Quran hundreds of times. Even though the name of the Holy Land is not mentioned in the Quran, the Quran refers to the Holy Land many times as the land of the children of Israel.
The Jewish Holy Temple stood on Temple Mount long before the Muslim religion, or any other current world religion was conceived. Even when the founders of the Christian religion walked around in the streets of ancient Jerusalem there were no mosques nor churches there - only the Jewish Holy Temple and nothing else. The land of the Jewish Holy Temple in Jerusalem was purchased by King David, for the Jewish people, approximately 850 years BCE. The deed, the name of the previous owner, and the purchase price were recorded in the Bible (See Samuel-B Ch. 24 and Chronicles-A Ch. 21-22).
Today the Muslim "Palestinians" claim to own Temple Mount, the site of the Jewish Holy Temple in Jerusalem. They claim it is "their" holy site. Does anyone in the rest of the world know which way the Muslims in Jerusalem face when they pray? When the Muslims in Jerusalem pray in their mosques, even in the "Al Aktza" mosque built on the edge of Temple Mount, they actually stand with their back turned to Temple Mount. And, when they bow down in their prayers they show their behind to the site of the Holy Temple. How consistent is that with considering it a Muslim holy site?
The Muslims have long ago recognized that the Holy Temple is a Jewish holy site. Its name in Arabic is "Al Quds" - "The Holiness" in English, which is an abbreviation for "The House of Holiness" - The Jewish Holy Temple. The fact is that Jerusalem is not important enough to the Muslims to be mentioned even once in the Quran, while Mecca and Medina, the only two Muslim holy cities, are mentioned hundreds of times. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, up until 1967, they never considered it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
Can any Muslim in the world produce any credible evidence for their connection to this holy site, other than in Muhammad's dream? Believe it or not, the one and only source for the Muslim's claim to Jerusalem and the site of the Holy Temple, is a mention in the Quran of a dream that Muhammad had about an unknown "far distant place (mosque)". This "far distant place (mosque)" could not have been in Jerusalem, because in Muhammad's time there was not even a single mosque in Jerusalem. The first mosque in Jerusalem was built 83 years after Muhammad died. Perhaps this "far distant place" is the site of the White House in Washington DC? Or the Vatican in Italy?
The best reference for understanding the Muslim-Arab mentality and politically-motivated falsification of history is Muhammad's own advice to his followers: "War is deception".
The real problem facing those Arabs today is not the lack of a homeland. The historical root-cause of their problem and frustration is the fact that the countries they came from have not agreed to accept them back in. This is why so many of them live, up until today, in refugee camps, in neighboring Arab countries, lacking fundamental civil rights. In their frustration they feel that the only hope and choice they have is to try and steal a country. Many of the vehicles and the agricultural equipment in the Palestinian Authority have been stolen from their Israeli neighbors. For a while, Israel suffered the highest rate of automobile thefts in the world! Most of these stolen vehicles were later found in towns and villages of the Palestinian Authority. If invading foreign land is so easy; if stealing vehicles is so easy; why not try and steal a country too?
There is only one possible solution to the "Palestinians" desire for a homeland. It is the only solution that will satisfy their claim of the right to return to their homeland. Since helping them return to where they lived for less than 30 years is their own definition of justice, then helping them return to where they lived earlier for hundreds or thousands of years is, by the same definition, a better justice. Let's all help them get the better justice they deserve. Let's help them return to where they came from - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
Recent proposals have suggested a two-state solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict - one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. The map below shows that a much more generous solution already exists - 21 states - one for the Jews and twenty for the Arabs.
The Quran contains more than 100 verses commanding Muslims to fight a war against non-Muslims. Some verses command Muslims to chop off heads and fingers and terrorize and kill non-Muslims. Other verses command Muslims to take land away from non-Muslims. Muslims are also prohibited from living in peace with non-Muslims on non-Muslim land. Anyone who avoids fighting against non-Muslims is punished. Because of such religious commandments, there is no chance and no hope that Muslims will ever live peacefully together with non-Muslims who live on non-Muslim land. Temporary periods of calm are nothing but a waiting period - waiting in ambush - waiting for an opportunity to strike.
History proves that a population exchange is the only possible solution, other than war, to conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, in 1923, the war between Turkey and Greece ended only when both sides agreed to a population exchange of more than two million Muslims and Greek-Orthodox Christians. Similarly, in 1947, more than 14 million Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, have exchanged locations in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
More than 800,000 Jews have relocated out of the Arab countries; about 600,000 moved to Israel and 200,000 moved to other countries. Now it is time to end the conflict between Jews and Muslims in Israel. The only possible peaceful solution is to complete the second half of this Jewish-Muslim population exchange by returning the Muslims in the Holy Land back to the Muslim countries where they came from.There is no shortage of space in the Arab-Muslim countries.

COMMENTS

Jon_i_Cohen

2 April, 2010 - 09:45

Rate this:

0 points

tomeisner2
haven't you read the article?
There is no such thing/entity as the palestinian people,this is the viewpoint from the Arabs standpoint.
If you are (really) Jewish why don't you campaign for your own people?
Let others campaign for themselves?
It is apparent that the "palestinian" campaign is inefectual, otherwise it would not need the cabal of Jewish self-haters to support it.
If you still think, (after reading the above article carefully), that there will be a country called palestine with a capital in Jerusalem you are deluded.
There is a new 3d film out "Alice In Wonderland", you should see it.


Jon_i_Cohen

2 April, 2010 - 10:55

Rate this:

0 points

Happy Easter to you Tom
So I assume you are not Jewish, as for Jews it is Pesach.
With 21 other Arab Countries why do you people persist with this obsession about Israel - it is like OCD, which also doesn't seem to have a cure - you just have to deal with it.
And, after 60 years it really is about time that you people dealt with the reality on the ground, and toddle off to support another cause.
Israel is going nowhere and no it won't become one country for jews and palestinians - that's the Alice In Wonderland viewpoint I mentioned earlier.
Chag Kosher Vesameach
Jon


Stephen Franklin

2 April, 2010 - 14:47

Rate this:

0 points

Tom. There is already one country for Jews and Arabs with Jerusalem as its capital.

Israel is not going to merge with the Palestine Authority in either the West Bank or Gaza or both to for a single country comprised of what was British Mandate Palestine.

In such a state the Jews would be a minority. The political leadership of the Palestinians has always been virulently anti-Jewish and remain so.

The Palestine Authority courts (in the West Bank) sentenced somebody to death last year for selling land to a Jew and virulently anti-Semitic hate messages are frequently broadcast on the official media of both West Bank and Gaza governing authorities.
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3479489,00.html
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2430.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8w7_P8wZ0.

There is no way that Israel could afford to risk another holocaust of the Jews by creating such a merged state.


Peter Simon

3 April, 2010 - 00:55

Rate this:

0 points

The Palestinians today have a shared ethos and a shared identity. Such is the consensus in their own communities, in the Arab world and elsewhere. Yet some persist in arrogantly and self-righteously dismissing them, effectively as a sort of 'non-people'.

If one extinguishes them conceptually, it's then much easier to extinguish them literally and physically, at least without feeling too bad about it. Much easier then to adopt Jon Cohen's final solution to the conflict: forcibly deport them from the land (the lot of them, including the 'Israeli Arabs').

In civilised circles this is often referred to as ethnic cleansing and in legal circles is classed as genocide. Then again, I don't think that many people here have heard of, let alone mix in, such circles.


Peter Simon

3 April, 2010 - 00:58

Rate this:

0 points

And how disgusting and despicable that he trumpets such views so soon after Pesach.

Who does he think he is: Pharaoh?


Jon_i_Cohen

3 April, 2010 - 07:28

Rate this:

0 points

@Peter Simon
If you had bothered to read the article, you will learn that the views expressed are from the Arab point of view, concurring and confirming that there has never been a Palestinian Arab entity/nation or state.
I take the view that the reality on the ground will enforce the situation that there will never be a Palestinian Arab entity/nation or state - unless of course you and your type are advocating the disolution of The State of Israel.
It is one or the other, not both.
Don't you think with 21 other Arab Countries they have enough? Why do they need more Land?, and what Land do you propose?
Is it perhaps a Fatahstan in Judea and Samaria AND a Hamastan in Gaza.
Squeeze Israel out in the middle! Rocket Israel from both sides!
Sorry peter simon it is never going to happen, go and see the "Alice In Wonderland" film with tomeisner2.


Stephen Franklin

3 April, 2010 - 07:55

Rate this:

0 points

Peter Simon says of readers of the Jewish Chronicle that not many of them have heard of, let alone mix in civilised circles.

I don't think that we need give such prejudiced posts any further consideration.


Stephen Franklin

3 April, 2010 - 16:01

Rate this:

0 points

By the way Peter, Pesach isn't over yet.


Peter Simon

3 April, 2010 - 17:22

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen Franklin: actually, I wasn't referring to JC readers in general but rather to two of the individuals on this thread.

I also note from previous threads that you misrepresent the findings of DNA studies in order to attempt to support a theory of quasi-racial purity among modern Jews which in turn is supposed to justify the notion of the Jews' exclusive rights to the land over those of the indigenous population.

Jon Cohen: you persist in the lie that the Arabs in Israel, West Bank and Gaza (whatever you arrogantly and self-righteously want to call them) have no long-term roots in the land and that somehow gives you the right (you and others who have only ever paid tourist visits to the land) to expel them and to assume powers of life or death over them.

You both represent some of the worst aspects of the growing racial supremacism which will ultimately be the death of Israeli democracy.


moshetzarfati2

3 April, 2010 - 17:49

Rate this:

0 points

Of course if you belive all this, I've a bridge and a tower to sell you near the City. I'm off to Abu Hassan's in Jaffa. Any one else want the best hummus in israel?


Jon_i_Cohen

3 April, 2010 - 17:50

Rate this:

0 points

For the benefit of "peter simon", (or whoever you really are), - I have lived in, hold an Israeli passport and have a home in where I spend a large part of each and every year - in Israel.
Read my posts and edcuate yourself, the Arabs clearly state that there has never been nor never will be a separate Palestinian Arab entity, they simply concurr with my point of view - which is the reality of the situation.
Have you never read any History? are you not aware of the wealth of Archaological discoveries, all of which without any doubt, support with categoric proof the right of the Jews to the Land of Israel.
You are flogging a dead horse, supporting a lost cause, your views are not welcome on the Jewish Chronicle.
This is a web site for Jewish People who support The State of Israel - the de- legitimisers and Israel bashers have a web site over on The Guardian - you opinions are better suited there.


DLeigh-Ellis

3 April, 2010 - 17:57

Rate this:

0 points

'blah blah blah.... Guardian, evil arabs - Israel Bashers, blah blah yadda yadda.'

Still playing the same old record Jon>?


DLeigh-Ellis

3 April, 2010 - 18:02

Rate this:

0 points

btw, this paper you claim 'expressed the arab point of view' clearly lacks integrity. It regularly goes over into emotional attacks, weaving disparate facts into a loosely themed anti-palestinian diatribe. It works in the same manner as a conspiracy theory, rather than an academic study. Weaving things like car theft alongside ideals for nationalism, completely nonsensical!!!

Even if the statements argued had any truth and the Palestinians did not have any historical claim to the land, I think you must still accept that Palestinian national identity now exists, even if only as a result of Israeli domestic policy.


DLeigh-Ellis

3 April, 2010 - 18:11

Rate this:

0 points

I mean, why is it worth even bothering with something that claims....

'With thanks to) - Dr Harry Mandlebaum who writes the following, using soley Arab, Muslim, and foreign sources. Jewish / Israeli sources were deliberately left out to avoid accusations of bias'

and then further down the page....

'It is important to note that estimates and censuses conducted by the Muslim conquerors were biased. Therefore, the only reliable data is provided by non-Muslim sources.'

A little inconsistent
______

Also, if the author as it is claimed needed to avoide 'accusations of bias,' it suggests the tone and agenda of the paper was to be a forgone conclusion anyway.

Historical Palestinian national identity may be a tricky thing to pin down, but papers such as this simply serve to mislead the reader from the firm facts of military abuses taking place on the ground today.


Jon_i_Cohen

3 April, 2010 - 19:29

Rate this:

0 points

Love it!
"Historical Palestinian (arab) identity may be a tricky thing to pin down"
Why is that I wonder? - oh yes because there is, nor ever has been any such thing!
By "military abuses" I assume you mean the protection of the Jewish citizens of Israel?
Surely its high time you gave up this lost "palestinian" cause and looked for something else to "hang your hat on".
The Guardian welcomes people with your views - have a look.
This is the Jewish Chronicle - Israel bashers are not welcome here.


DLeigh-Ellis

3 April, 2010 - 20:24

Rate this:

0 points

To your first point, indeed... That was precisely why I said it...

To the rest of your statement... Well, you clearly have not taken on board any of my criticism of the paper at all.

This is why people tire of debating with you Jon. You are so far gone that worthwhile discourse is impossible.

And I'm not part of the 'cause' as you put it. I merely tire of hearing people like yourself spout bile in my name.


Stephen Franklin

3 April, 2010 - 20:58

Rate this:

0 points

Peter Simon

You said of me "I also note from previous threads that you misrepresent the findings of DNA studies in order to attempt to support a theory of quasi-racial purity among modern Jews which in turn is supposed to justify the notion of the Jews' exclusive rights to the land over those of the indigenous population."

I did no such thing. I never said anything about racial quasi-purity. I was refuting an anti-Semitic post, since removed, that said, contrary to the evidence that I provided, that the DNA evidence proved that there was no link between Jews of today and the Middle East.

I also provided evidence that most people who call themselves Palestinians today are NOT the indigenous population.

See the posts concerned in their original context:
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/re-bbc-editor-jews-should-think-palestine-...

As for "justifying the notion of the Jews' exclusive rights to the land over those of the indigenous population." I do no such thing. See my post towards the end of
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/israel-and-britain-when-friends-fall-out-d...

I am on the liberal left and oppose racism. Saying that somebody who believes in equal rights is a racist just shows how desperate you are.


Stephen Franklin

3 April, 2010 - 21:16

Rate this:

0 points

Peter Simon

You said "In civilised circles this is often referred to as ethnic cleansing and in legal circles is classed as genocide. Then again, I don't think that many people here have heard of, let alone mix in, such circles."

That statement was not directed at just " two of the individuals on this thread". It was directed at the readership of the Jewish Chronicle.

You lied about what I said and you lied about what you said, but the evidence is there for all to see.

It is not me who is the racist.

It is not me who is the racist.


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 07:29

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh Ellis you say that you post here because you tire of people like Jon Cohen "spouting bile in your name".

Instead you choose to call one of a series of anti-Semitic posts (now removed from http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/re-bbc-editor-jews-should-think-palestine-...) "excellent", and on this page you choose to speak up in favour of somebody who doesn't think that many readers of the Jewish Chronicle have "have heard of, let alone mix in" civilised circles.

In your effort to disassociate yourself from friends of Israel be careful who you associate yourself with.

It seems to me that you have chosen the wrong option.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 13:12

Rate this:

0 points

Have you even read this paper that Jon is touting... It is filled with unverified half truths alongside misleading and tainted reflections of history... Yet he presents it as gospel...

I do not associate with anyone through what I say on these boards, as I have pointed out to you before. Words here are always taken to be used against you. That is why I am very careful to make sure I stand by what I have said. You can try and slander me for whom I choose to support but I assure you, it will not work. All I have provided is a starting critique of this paper that as yet Jic has not (and probably will not) responded to.

You have intentionally misread the 'civilised circles,' comment. Despite the fact that his intention has been explained to you by the author, you still draw the most offensive possible reading of his words. It was clearly only directed at two people, i'm a reader of the JC and I did not take offence from it. You are trying to stir up antagonism that is not actually present.

Every few weeks I come on to these boards and Jic has written yet another monotonous, hate-filled diatribe against the peace process. I understand that he is entitled to his opinion, but what distresses me is the relish by which he seems to enjoy belittling the peace process. It is almost as if he thrives off the carnage in the middle east. This attitude, coupled with his regular declarations that his bround of militant Israeli/Judaism is the only valid brand, is completely unacceptable to me. I assure you, if Jon had the guts to say any of this in person to the majority of young Jewish Brits, he would find himself argued down in minutes.

If you read my earlier blogs you will understand that I have a relationship with Israel and a deep understanding of my religion and Zionist theory. On the other hand Jon's words are boring, dangerous and antagonistic, and and if you choose to defend them stephen, then it seems to me that you have chosen the wrong option.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 13:14

Rate this:

0 points

(by bround I met brand - typo) shame we can't edit anymore


Jon_i_Cohen

4 April, 2010 - 13:48

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh-Ellis
I know its's a long article, I am not "touting" it, the views expressed are a matter of fact and historical record. It is worth reading as it is from the Arab perspective. Yes it concurrs with my view that the idea/concept of a palestinian Arab people is a myth, (as you well know dreamt up by Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas in 1964).
Take a consensus amongst, FZY,BBYO, Bnei-Akiva, amongst whom I talk, you will soon discover, without exception all support the views of the mainstream that:-
#1.Israel is a State for the Jews NOT the Arabs. ,
and
#2. You can NOT negotiate with those avowed to destroy you.
Your views are held by the fringe, the extreme left of centre, who only see bad in Israel and support our enemies. In previous blogs I have referred to Lord Haw-Haw and Quislings.
I find it is very easy to deal with the likes of Galloway, Corbyn, Short etc (I have been doing that publicly for over 30 years), it is much harder to deal with fellow Jews or those purporting to be fellow Jews like the deluded Greenstein,(et all), as they are the enemy from within - that is the (for me), upsetting part of the de legitimise Israel campaign in the UK.
Stephen Franklin bloggs on here in support of Israel, his views are educated, well informed and very welcome.
The Jewish Chronicle is a forum for Jews and those who support Israel - if, as you obviously do, disagree with this, then you should be spending your efforts blogging on the Guardian NOT on the Jewish Chronicle web site.


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 14:00

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh-Ellis

I am not writing in support of anybody and no I haven't read most of his posts. They are too long.

I also made clear that I specifically differentiated myself from some of Jon's views, when he criticised left wingers by saying that I am from the liberal left.

In fact I believe that anybody who actually knows what is going on in the Middle East, as opposed to people who rely on partial and misleading reports, and believes in decency and human rights can not do other than back Israel in its dispute with Syria, Iran, Hamas and Fatah.

You however did say of an anti-Semitic post, that has since been removed, under my blog (http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/re-bbc-editor-jews-should-think-palestine-...) "excellent post". That was associating yourself with the post.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 14:15

Rate this:

0 points

Jon, I am not part of the 'fringe,' there are many people who believe as I do. I do not only see bad in Israel, as I have expressed many times. (Why would I have lived there for 6 months if I hated the place.)

You are right, it is not possibleto talk with those who vow to destroy you. Yet you do exactly the same but representing Jews, and this is dangerous. This is exactly why I said that moderates, not extremists must direct talk. People like yourself and the Palestinian equivelants only seek further violence.

You ask me why I blog here rather than the Guardian. It is because I wish to deal with Jewish religious and cultural issues. Initially I did not want to even talk about the Israeli situation when I started blogging. I only do so because of the warped agenda that you are so keen on propogating. To say that my views relinquish my right to use this website and therefore you do not have to engage is a lazy and futile way of involving yourself Jon.

Jon, do you have any academic credentials whatsoever>? You clearly do not understand how the processes of study and research actually function. I have already pulled up several points about how this article is biased (severely.) I can add to these if you want... Citing single lines from various unsourced publications would not stand up against any academic criteria. The author invokes quotes from things as far afield as British consuls and Arab Caliphs, no expression of context or reasoning is given. How can a reader trust quotes without knowing the context>?

Secondly, this paragraph.... ''The Quran contains more than 100 verses commanding Muslims to fight a war against non-Muslims. Some verses command Muslims to chop off heads and fingers and terrorize and kill non-Muslims.........................................Temporary periods of calm are nothing but a waiting period - waiting in ambush - waiting for an opportunity to strike.''

This is clearly a biased view of the Quran, as I have put to you before Jon, there are also as many antagonistic verses in the OT yet we ignore them, knowing that to breed hate from scripture is an abomination. Most Muslims would agree, yet you continually cite certain medieval points of the Quran as if they would be accepted by moderate muslim scholars, which you must know they clearly would not.
Furthermore, the paragraph has little to do with the rest of the article. It show that the author has a hard time distinguishing between Palestinian national identity and Christian or Islamic religiousity. It allows all his (and your) prejudices to come shining through and it undermines any agenda put forward by the article.

Thats enough about the article, I can go on if you wish

Finally Jon, How can you argue that even if the Palestinian people have no historical root, the actions since '67 have not cemented a new national identity for them. In the same manner that the notion of the modern 'Londoner,' was not achieved until the onset of the blitz, the Israeli military abuses have forced a sense of national identity on Palestinians who may before have only called themselves Arab. Your way of thinking is barbaric, reminiscent of the geneological thinking of medieval kings. You suggest that because Palestinians do not have a traceable link back to the never-never and origins of their people, their rights in the modern world deserve to be trampled on.

Your thinking is primitive and barbaric Jon, you spout hatred and then try to stifle opposition through shouting about the guardian, sandles and how those who disagree with you must be false players, or fake jews. You know deep down in your heart of hearts how wrong you are, or surely you would bother to research your material and check the standards before you posted it up. You don't do this because you know if anyone criticises you, you can just resort to your same old tired methods of ... ahem .... 'debate.'


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 14:20

Rate this:

0 points

DLeigh-Ellis

You say "You have intentionally misread the 'civilised circles,' comment. Despite the fact that his intention has been explained to you by the author, you still draw the most offensive possible reading of his words. It was clearly only directed at two people, i'm a reader of the JC and I did not take offence from it. You are trying to stir up antagonism that is not actually present."

The civilised circles comment was "In civilised circles this is often referred to as ethnic cleansing and in legal circles is classed as genocide. Then again, I don't think that MANY PEOPLE here have heard of, let alone mix in, such circles."

NB The capitals represented my emphasis.

It was clearly NOT directed at just two people.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 14:22

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen, thanks for your reply.

As I said before, I did not see antisemitism in that post. To me it was 'excellent,' because it aimed to combat Jons obvious prejudices.

I do back Israel in its conflict, I am simply trying to point out that Israel is also well served by criticism which seeks to counter the right-leaning school of thought that seems to dominate its politics atm. This is a conflict on which right or wrong is so far gone. Israel may have a better record on human rights yet it is still a heavy offender, especially with regards to its prisoners. This is precisely why people on the same side must seek to combat injustices.

I want an Israel I can be proud of, one that represents justice and liberty in an honest fashion, therefore I will seek to influence thinking in any way I can, even if it does sometimes upset Jon when I trample his stomping-ground.


moshetzarfati2

4 April, 2010 - 14:31

Rate this:

0 points

well said, DLE. I agree with every word you wrote there.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 15:09

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks Moshe, Stephen... I don't think it was directed at the entire readership as only a few people had commented by that point in the conversation. Besides, the previous paragraph Peter Simon wrote was much more worth turning over and over than the one that seems to have offended you. 'Extinguish them conceptually,' is precisely the agenda of Jon's role on this website.


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 15:11

Rate this:

0 points

I have criticisms of some aspects of Israeli government policy. Most Jews in Britain have at least indirect access to Israelis of influence to whom we can address any concerns we may have.

If we make our concerns public in this country they are used by those who wish to destroy Israel.

I disagree that Israel is a heavy offender. I think that Colonel Kemp (British commander in Afghanistan in 2003) was absolutely right when he said that no country in the world does more to avoid civilian casualties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WssrKJ3Iqcw

Certainly the UK and USA do/did not have such high standards in in our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I recently attended a meeting addressed by some Labour MPs and others including Tony Benn. For hours I listened to lie after lie filled with bile. These people are not typical of Labour MPs and most will not be in the next parliament, but it was absolutely disturbing to hear it.

I also spoke to some anti-Israel demonstrators outside Chatham House recently.

One of them said to me "Go to Jerusalem and await the apocalypse." She also said that she wanted to see Israel destroyed and it was clear that she meant physically destroyed, bringing death and destruction to its people.

With such views at home and the danger faced by the people of Israel to which we are not exposed, I think that we should publicly give our support to Israel.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 15:48

Rate this:

0 points

In terms of Israel's records on Human Rights, I was referring not so much to its conduct in war, (in which I understand the IDF do more than many other armies to try to reduce civilian casualties.) The Human Rights abuses I refer to are upon those placed without charge, (or on shaky evidence) into administrative detention (as the Israelis term it.) This is not something I single out Israel for, I was equally critical of Gitmo and the US/UK rendition policies. However, just because I am bound by my faith to the fate of a particular nation, I will not stand by any place that seems to represent ideals that I personally would stand firmly against.

I don't agree that because people are against us we have no obligation to reform Israeli policy. To not accept that there are aspects of Israeli policy that require change is simply brutishly stubborn.

The way to face the protestors you speak of is to show that not all Jews follow the Israeli hardline without question, that there is room for dialogue and comprimise. That is better than reinforcing their stereotypical views that sympathisers of Israel are hardline warmongers, which seems to be what the person you spoke to was implying.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 15:51

Rate this:

0 points

Btw, is is unusual that I do not have ''at least indirect access to Israelis of influence.''? I wasn't aware that this was something that was doled out with the bris and barmitzvah


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 15:57

Rate this:

0 points

It isn't doled out. But if you go to synagogue you almost certainly know somebody who has some connections.

I have certainly been invited to meetings which have been addressed by members of the Israeli government and had brief access to the speakers and anybody who is involved in Jewish events is at least occasionally invited to such events.


DLeigh-Ellis

4 April, 2010 - 16:16

Rate this:

0 points

That is true, and when based in London I had greater access. But now I live up north, in a city without a single synagogue, or any established Jewish community, the best manner in which I can contribute is to comment on blogs such as these. Jic's assertions that I do not have the right to do so, simply because of my opinions, are highly irritating.


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 16:34

Rate this:

0 points

You have the right to express whatever opinions that you like so long as they are not offensive.

There is no shortage of critics of Israel in the media.

Israel is endangered by Iranian sponsored terrorism and possibly by an Iranian nuclear bomb.

At the moment the voice of Israel's friends is being drowned out by hysterical critics, most of whom don't actually know what is going on.

Israel needs the Jewish people to be there for them. When Jews are in trouble anywhere in the world Israel is there to give them refuge and/or any other support that it can.

Anti-Semitism in Britain and around the world is now worse than it has been since WW2. Then there was no Israel and 6 million Jews were massacred.
Let us make sure that that never happens again.


moshetzarfati2

4 April, 2010 - 17:32

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen, can you see the correlation between the rise in antisemitism and Israel's actions? Ehud Olmert could.


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 21:24

Rate this:

0 points

I see the rise in the correlations between totally distorted reports in the media of Israel's supposed actions and anti-Semitic incidents.

A classic example is the one that is the subject my blog
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/re-bbc-editor-jews-should-think-palestine-...

The media distort what is happening in the Israel/Palestine dispute to a massive extent. I gave other examples of the BBC doing so on earlier blogs that I did.

The subject is brilliantly expounded upon by the former head of the Europe programme at Chatham House, Robin Shepherd in his book "A State Beyond the Pale".


Stephen Franklin

4 April, 2010 - 23:41

Rate this:

0 points

In fact Olmert didn't say that there was a correlation between the rise in antisemitism and Israel's actions.

He said that there was a correlation between biased media reports of the Israel/Palestine dispute and the rising number of anti-Semitic incidents.

There are masses of biased reports in the British media , and as I follow the BBC more than most (I do not claim that it is the most biased) I can give plenty of examples from the BBC, although the example on my latest blog is from Channel 4.

I am not a masochist so tend not to read the most biased of the former broadsheet media.


Jon_i_Cohen

5 April, 2010 - 09:01

Rate this:

0 points

This little argument exposes moshetzarfati2 for the way he chooses to leave out the key point on every issue he comments on, thereby distorting the subject matter for his own extreme left-wing viewpoint.
It is really getting silly now - and wasting everyones time.


moshetzarfati2

5 April, 2010 - 09:32

Rate this:

0 points

No, Olmert said that Israel's actions had a negative impact on Jews abroad. It's nothing to do with left or right, it's all to do with with Israel's actions.


Jon_i_Cohen

5 April, 2010 - 09:51

Rate this:

0 points

No, Olmert said that :-
(Distorted and biased media reporting of) "Israels actions had a negative impact on Jews abroad".
The two statments are totally different, and by choosing to leave out the words I have put in brackets you change the entire meaning to suite your own, (left-wing, extreme, nonsense), viewpoint - I am sorry that you cannot understand that.
The above is just one example; the same applies to all your postings on this web site; you leave out the key words or key point to change the meaning and suite your own agenda.
Everyone is wise to it now, we see a posting from moshetzarfati2 and the reaction is (heavy sigh!!), here we go again.


moshetzarfati2

5 April, 2010 - 09:55

Rate this:

0 points

He didn't add the "distorted and biased", Jon. That's why you had to put them in brackets, because he never said them.


DLeigh-Ellis

5 April, 2010 - 11:31

Rate this:

0 points

Jon I Cohen writes, (directede to Moshe presumably) 'you leave out the key words or key point to change the meaning and suite your own agenda.'

Spelling mistakes aside Jon, you appear to be suiting your own agenda here, you have not yet responded to any criticisms of the paper, picking upon Moshes one comment rather than actually confronting any criticism..

Same as always Jon. Talk about missing out the 'key point... ' You now seem prepared to ignore the very thing you posted.


DLeigh-Ellis

5 April, 2010 - 12:03

Rate this:

0 points

Here Jon, another example of the misinformation present in this article.

The quote by Mark Twain, 'There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent; not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings ... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

___

This quote is taken from a travel manual written by Twain called 'those innocents abroad.' This book famously invokes a satirical take on the work of another writer (William Cowper Prime,) whom Twain ridicules for his over sentimental prose. It is thus possible to understand why the language used by Twain is highly romanticised. It serves to confirm his Americanised romantic vision of the middle east, desolate, mystical and ancient. Describing a desolate journey is a common enough literary device, especially around the time when the travel book first became popularised (is late 18th 19th century.)

Furthermore, Twain does not ignore the Arab population. In the chapter detailing the 'Plain of Abraham,' he writes:

'Picturesque Arabs sat upon the ground, in groups, and solemnly smoked their longstemmed chibouks. Other Arabs were filling black hog-skins with water -- skins which, well filled, and distended with water till the short legs projected painfully out of the proper line, looked like the corpses of hogs bloated by drowning. Here was a grand Oriental picture which I had worshiped a thousand times in soft, rich steel engravings!'

So here he describes not only the contemporary presence of an Arab population but also the fact that he recognises such a scene from historical impressions. They may not be 'Palestinians' as they term themself, but they are certainly an Arab population living on the land that is now Israel.

This is how your author picks and chooses Jon. Did he not even read the whole of Twains book? Did he just pick out some arbitrary moment without references to Arabs knowing it would support his readers mythologies and that they would not bother to check.

There are more, but we can let you defend this one first.
____


Stephen Franklin

5 April, 2010 - 12:04

Rate this:

0 points

moshetzarfati2

Olmert's actual words were “As long as we continue to be presented as occupiers, we'll continue to suffer from anti-Semitism."

His words specifically related to the way that Israel was presented. It was not about Israel's actions.

It is the biased reporting in the media that is the cause of the way Israel is presented and it is up to us to do something about it.

Write letters to the newspapers, email correspondents, use the BBC and OFCOM complaints procedure and do so using accurate facts that point out the lies in their reports and also show the effect that the resulting antti-Semitic attacks are having on the orthodox community in this country.


moshetzarfati2

5 April, 2010 - 12:31

Rate this:

0 points

Incorrect, Stephen. The action is the occupation and all the policies derived from it. Olmert, too little and too late (he was a Likudnik after all), realised that the occupation was operating against Israel's best interests and harming Jews abroad.
Frankly, how the media portrays Israel is not a big deal. It might give some communal professionals and Israel apologists somnething to moan and whine about, but the main problem is Israel's policies which are helping Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc and alienating Israel's true friends.


Stephen Franklin

5 April, 2010 - 13:39

Rate this:

0 points

moshetzarfati2

My quote was using Olmert's own words. I don't agree with him about a lot of things but I do agree with him that media presentation of the conflict causes anti-Semitism.

CST director of communications Mark Gardner does too. When anti-Semitic incidents were at a record high he said

“Antisemites are using an overseas conflict as an excuse for their racism, and this should be clearly condemned by all sectors of society. In particular, we are seeing the inevitable antisemitic impact of many years of anti-Israel hysteria, in addition to an enraged response to TV and newspaper images of this conflict.”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/worst-wave-hate-quarter-a-century

I can give hundreds of examples of such biased media reports, but if I do that maybe I should switch to my own blog pages, which are largely related to that subject.


moshetzarfati2

5 April, 2010 - 13:46

Rate this:

0 points

It's always very easy to blame "media presentation" for attacks on Jews. Olmert realised that it was Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its attacks on Gaza and Lebanon which caused the spike in attacks on Jews abroad.


DLeigh-Ellis

5 April, 2010 - 13:54

Rate this:

0 points

Tis a bit of a chicken or egg scenario.... ie what causes antisemitism, the event or the reporting of said event.

Also, as Gardner says, isn't the racism inherent within many individuals.... The media reports simply provide a springboard for the antisemitism to manifest itself.

Btw, Jon... Are you there? Strangely quiet now, perhaps you would care to respond to some of my criticisms of your authors understanding of literature.


Stephen Franklin

5 April, 2010 - 14:37

Rate this:

0 points

It isn't that the events are reported that causes the problem. It is that the reports are blatantly one-sided.

As I said I can give hundreds of examples. It is still happening now but some of the worst examples of biased reporting came at a pivotal time, 2000-02, when the situation changed from one of the best prospects of peace in a long time to one where such a prospect looked a long way away.

Pivotal events were totally misreported.

At Camp David the Israeli negotiating team asked the Palestinian team if it would be ok if Sharon visited the Temple Mount. The Palestinian team said yes so long as he gave the Palestinians the time and date in advance and didn't enter the Dome of the Rock or al-Aqsa mosque. The Israelis agreed. Sharon did not enter either place and according to Palestinian sources Arafat used the occasion to launch the al-Aqsa intifada, which was planned in advance. This was reported very differently in the British media.

When 2 Israeli reservists reservists accidentally took a wrong turning in the West Bank and they were taken back to the Palestine Authority HQ in Ramallah, where they were lynched their bodies thrown out of the window and torn apart by the mob, Israel was attacked in the media as if they were culpable and as if the two lost reservists were undercover agents.

The iconic image of the young al-Dura being shot has been proven to be faked. In a court of law it was shown that the bullets couldn't have been fired from the Israeli positions. There was no blood on either father or son and the rushes showed that the boy raised his arm to look at the camera after he was supposed to be already dead.
See the zipped presentation files on the link below:
http://india2009.wan-press.org/media/presentations/sharingpresentations/...

In Nablus in 2002 following an accusation against Israel of a massacre of Palestinians in the British media there was a spike in anti-Semitic incidents before it was acknowledged that no massacre took place.

The Palestinians were even caught by Israeli drones staging fake funerals from the "massacre".
http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0204.htm#


Stephen Franklin

6 April, 2010 - 09:50

Rate this:

0 points

Such major distortions as those above still happen several times each week, although there are not such pivotal events each week.

The effects of the media distortions mentioned above and others are continuing today.

These reports helped to contribute to a situation where in a Populus poll of Muslims taken for The Times in December 2005 a majority of those who gave a definite answer said that they agreed with the statement
"The Jewish community in Britain are legitimate targets as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East"
http://www.populus.co.uk/the-times-muslim-poll-191205.html

Since then the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Britain has soared.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.