Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.

After major violence again erupted in 1929, the British Shaw Commission report noted that “In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.” Representatives from all sides of the emerging conflict testified to the commission that prior to the First World War, “the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which today is almost unknown in Palestine.” The problem was that “The Arab people of Palestine are today united in their demand for representative government”, but were being denied that right by the Zionists and their British benefactors.

The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. “It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house”, the report noted. “The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 View All

Jeremy R. Hammond

HomepageFacebookTwitterLinkedInYouTubeGoogle+
Jeremy R. Hammond
Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and a recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. He is the founding editor of Foreign Policy Journal and the author of Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis and The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Israeli-Arab Conflict. His forthcoming book is Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. He blogs at JeremyRHammond.com. Click here to sign up for his free newsletter
  • fred lapides

    More myths:
    Hamas does not seek the destruction of Israel
    Hezbollah does not seek the destruction of Israel
    Rockets do not shower down on Israel lands
    There were never suicide bombers trying to kill civilians in Israel
    Arafat died of natural causes and his wife won billions in a lottery and now lives in Paris, enjoying those winnings.
    It just seems that Israel, unlike other states, does not have a chance at the rotating chair of the Security Council. In actuality, the chair is uncomfortable so they have decided not to occupy it.
    Arab states did not attack Israel in 1948 to destroy Israel…they wanted to help celebrate the new state that the UN, the US and Russia accepted as a legal state.

    • http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      fred,

      “Hamas does not seek the destruction of Israel”. I address that in the article. As for Hezbollah, it’s absurd to say it seeks the destruction of Israel. As for your “myths” numbers 3 and 4, I don’t know anyone who denies that there have been rocket and suicide bombings against Israel. I address your last one in the article, as well.

      • gary brown

        without the occupation there would be no hamas ? hezbollha protects lebanese sovereignty after repeated israeli attacks that have caused the deaths of thousands

    • http://sudhan.wordpress.com Nasir Khan

      Zionist trash as it really is!

      • Jen

        Typical namecalling by a Muslim basher of Israel, lol.

        NO to another Arab/Muslim terror state!

        56 Islamic / 22 Arab coutries are enough

        Stop the terror thugs and the Islamist colonial empire….

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          If you’re interested in stopping terrorism, direct your attention to one of the leading state purveyors of terrorism, Israel.

          • Jamie

            Israel…state purveyor of terrorism? You just lost all credibility. Israel does not use suicide bombers…does not train children up to hate anyone not of the jewish faith…does not dance in the streets when a terrorist pulls off a major attack…does not scream at the world for the end of a people…does not use children to kill…etc. ad nauseam. Please stop your hatred towards jews, and just admit that Israel exists. Whether or not you like it, it exists, and you cannot do anything about it. Shalom

  • Civilian

    Mr Hammond,

    Do not waste your precious time and energy by trying to reason with the delusional Freds lapidesof the world.

    He and his ilk are the type that makes my vomit want to vomit.

    The Fred Lapides of the world are pure human filth and should be treated a s such.

    Civilian

    They know nothing but lies

  • http://tweetextensions.com Alan Ireland

    “This war, therefore, was not, as is commonly asserted in mainstream commentary, an act of aggression by the Arab states against Israel.”

    The map by Glubb, which I have posted at http://tweetextensions.com , shows that, with the exception of the Egyptian army, which crossed the Negev, the Arab forces did not enter the areas allocated to the Jewish state. Has anyone come up with any evidence that challenges Glubb’s assertion?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      No land was “allocated” to the Jewish state, Alan. It’s a myth that the U.N. created Israel, as I note in the article. The land “allocated” to Israel was mostly owned by Arabs, so whether or not the Arab armies entered that land is a moot point, really. It’s correct, as far as I know, by irrelevant.

      • Jamie

        Correct! The UN did not creta Israel…they just recognized it as a state along with the U.S, and the U.S.S.R. That gave it credence. The recognition by those countries made it a country in the eyes of the world…but now that Israel refuses to give back land taken by force of arms the world views them as evil. I say that any religion that teaches their children to hate is evil. Shalom

      • minted

        Let me guess: you are of Arab descent and base your “facts” on your grandmothers fairytales?

        Fact 1:
        Arabs have been seeking to exterminate the Jewish community since 620 AD and will always seek to do so, irrespective of Israel.

        Fact 2:
        Britain drew the map for Israel in 1917. At the time the land was almost barren – apart from a decade later when a sudden influx of thousands of illegal Arab immigrants, pushed on the area deliberately from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, began to force their way in.

        Fact 3:
        The “Palestinian” people were actually created in 1935 for the purpose of Jihad. Created by Hitler’s ally, the Grand Mufti, who was the orchestrator of the holocaust which historic documents have now shown.

        The “Palestinian” people are actually a terrorist creation. They have no desire or intention of peace. Not with Israel nor with anyone else.

        Fact 4:
        Because of the rapid volume of illegals pouring into transjordan/palestine the British divide Israel into two and called thesecond part Jordan – which was given to these invaders from Egypt and Saudi Arabia in hope that it would avert further conflicts. So they had plenty of land. Even twice more land than Israel itself. But they never wanted land. They had their own homeland to return to (and still hold passports from them). They wanted JIHAD. They are there for terrorism and nothing else.

        Enough with the Muslim bullshit! Its everywhere around the world. The only thing these sick animals deserve is a bullet in their head. FCYK these Palestinian terrorist invaders! They deserve no sympathy from anyone.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          I would merely observe that you didn’t manage to point out a single factual error in anything I wrote. You did, however, illustrate for us your bigotry, which is instructive.

          • Trym Stein Hagen

            He did the exact same thing as you; produce “facts” without any references. When you accuse him of bigotry you’re at the same time accusing yourself

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            I see that logic isn’t one of your strengths.

      • XtreeemMetalman

        Now there is some fascism there. If you were an Arab and you said that comment, fine. But you’re not. So why doesn’t it matter if Arab Armies surrounding went to the Jewish Areas or if they went to the the Arab Areas?

  • http://NasirKhanblog Nasir Khan

    Thank you Jeremy for your brilliant essay to to dismantle some Zionist myths and the falsification of what actually happened in history. However, the Zionist perversion of history will not stop.

    But we know that Zionists and their friends have enormous resources to concoct more lies and churn more myths. If people like you come under attack, then we know why.

  • http://foreignpolicyjournal.com Moign Khawaja

    An amazing myth-busting article that’s supposed to be dropped on all Zionist-sponsored lies spreading media. It’s a must read for everyone especially Arabs because they know so less about the history and are still in the bubble of supremacy and glory. Should be fed to apologists too who are too sorry to open their eyes and understand the facts that Zionist aggression is the reason behind all ills in the Middle East. Thanks so much for arming us with these handy facts Jeremy. Bravo!

  • http://sudhan.wordpress.com Nasir Khan

    To combat Zionists’ lies and obfuscations is no easy task because they produce them on large scale.

    Mr Hammond has tried to give us a judicious explanation in face of heavy odds in the MSM.

  • Civilian

    Alan, there is no evidence to proof otherwise., the lies have been exposed.

    Yet many israeli appeasers will continue on with their shameless lies.

    Civilian

  • hanthala33

    myth 11; the two state solution is viable- it is not- only a one state solution is viable and obtainable
    myth12; peace will never be achieved in the middle east; it will for peace is…inevitable
    myth 13; that Hanthala will never return home- he will when we grow up and become the people we should be which is caring, empathetic,tolerant,altruistic and ahimsatic

  • susana

    if you start with a premise; then the rest , as meaningful context is colored as such. It is always funny just from the stand point alone; that there has always been agression for food, water , land…”right to ones own happiness” whatever that means…whos happiness over the other, etc. It never ends, this is a perpetual schematic over all of history. What is striking is the way it is applied to the Jewish question……there are many arab countries and no jewish ones (prior to the nation of israel), because of the history of the jews/diaspora….to talk about a right to land etc, is to negate the essential impetus that started out as a way to survive/exist in the world….especially post WWll….on has to set aside any talk/acknowledgement of what the jews go had/is going through…
    as if covert and overt prejudices just up and left; therefore we do not have to interpret political/latitudnal moves through such a narrow lense….really too much. One can always cherry pick events and interpret things in a said fashion, and still come off as truth…”truth” is a slippery thing, and is interpreted with each person’s bias…no matter how much one likes to think that they’re open to the “facts”…spurious as any comment can get.
    Going foward; since Israel is a nation that does exist, i doubt that it is a plausible request to have the jews up and leave….so a 2 state solution is something that has to be worked out. what may that look like? that’s what we have to work on….and not with the rhetoric/denial that Hamas and extremists have israel’s needs taken to heart (give me a break….we need real talk/real solutions).

  • http://boycottisraeltoday.wordpress.com/ Boycott Israel Today

    Israel is an illegal state supported by American tax payer, such support can only really survive for a short period, that is no in sight.

    One thing people need to remember is this, Israel is formed illegally and is in the centre of nations who general population are totally hostile against them. As such, when tables will change Israel will need to pay for all the destruction is has caused in the region and around the world.

    We are educated from day one (in school, college and Universities) that evil never succeeds and is held accountable one day, that day is long over due.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am not against Jewish people or their religion for that matter, what I am against is oppression and terrorism, which today is know as Israel. There are some Jewish people/group who deny Israel and agree that it should not exist, but they are largely ignored or known as traitors and shunned by the pro-Israel media.

    Israel life expectancy is less that 100 years, and this illegal empire is built on Palestinians blood, which one day they need to account for.

    • Eldarus

      Israel has as much right to exist as you are my friend. You have no right to decide anyone’s rights.

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

        No nation has a “right to exist”. This is an absurd and meaningless concept. The proper framework for discussion is the right to self-determination, which is denied to the Palestinians by Israel and not vice-versa.

        • Helter Skelter

          Are you ever going to stop spreading your lies and propaganda? This facade of intellectualism that you try to wear isn’t fooling anyone. You’ve been consistently proven to be wrong on everything you’ve said.
          What do you get put of advocating for terrorism?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            How, in your mind, does pointing out that a state’s “right to exist” is a meaningless concept and that the proper framework is the right to self-determination equate to “advocating for terrorism”?

        • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

          They have Jordan

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            Yes, we are all well aware that some people, like yourself, reject the right of self-determination for the Palestinians altogether.

            I have deleted a number of your posts. Please do not paste entire articles without links. You are welcome to share links to articles to support your arguments, but please keep your comments relevant to the article.

          • Liadan

            Who has Jordan? Not the Palestinians. And why would they want Jordan? Palestine is their home. Are you suggesting Palestinians take over a different country and expell them as Israel did to Palestinians?

          • XtreeemMetalman

            The fact is Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Syria and are the same country. With artificial borders.

        • Chris. K Cook

          The Doctrine of Self Determination gives Israel the Right to Exist. The people of Israel want Israel to exist. Therefore it should.

          Hamas and the BDS movement and people like you are calling for it’s destruction and attempting to legitimise it. So you may not be denying it but you sure as fuck want to.

    • glennk

      “Israel is an illegal state ” By your standards so is America.

    • XtreeemMetalman

      You don’t believe Jewish Heritage has the right to exist in Palestine, right? I agree Anglos living in Oklahoma and Ohio and Arizona and Nebraska need to leave as well, you nazi lol

  • James

    Top ten myths about Israel and the Middle East conflict

    Myth #1: Jews have no historic connection to Israel/Palestine.

    A key element of Arab and anti-Zionist attacks on Israel is the notion that the Jewish presence in the country is a remnant of 19th century imperialism in which Europeans colonized and exploited parts of the third world. But far from being outsiders there, the Jewish ties date back 4,000 years to the very beginning of Jewish history recounted in the Bible and verified by much of the evidence of archeology that has been discovered.

    Though the Romans expelled most of the Jewish population from the country, Jewish settlement continued without interruption throughout the last 2,000 years. In all this time, the Land of Israel remained a constant in thoughts and the hearts of Jews throughout the world, as it was remembered in their daily prayers and in their dreams.

    Myth #2: Jews have no unique claim to the ancient and holy city of Jerusalem.

    Though both Christianity and Islam have holy sites in the city, the Jewish ties predate that of any other existing religion. King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago — 1,700 years before Islam was even founded. Jerusalem never served as even a provincial capital during the centuries of Muslim rule. The entire city is sacred to Jews; only the Dome of the Rock has religious significance to Muslims. Moreover, in the modern era, Jews have been the majority of the population of the city since the 1840s.

    As for freedom of worship, the only period during which all faiths have been free to worship in peace has been since 1967 when the city became unified under Israeli sovereignty.

    Myth #3: The Zionist movement was never prepared to share the land.

    From the very start of the Jewish return to their historic homeland in the late 19th century, it has never been the goal of the Zionist movement to uproot the Arab population or to create a state where only Jews could live. In 1922, the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine was partitioned by Britain, with the east bank of the Jordan River reserved for Arab rule (it eventually become the Kingdom of Jordan), and the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan being designated as the Jewish National Home. Dating back to the 1930s, every subsequent peace plan that has been proposed involved some sort of partition of the Western portion of Palestine. Though all of these schemes involved painful concessions for the Jews, the leadership of the Zionist movement and subsequently the Jewish state always accepted this principle of sharing the country.

    Myth #4: The lack of an independent Palestinian Arab state is the fault of the Zionists.

    In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine between a Jewish state and an Arab state. The response of the Palestinian Arabs, as well as the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, was a categorical rejection of any scheme that allowed a Jewish state on any part of the land, no matter what its borders might be. No effort was made to set up an independent Arab state in the part of Palestine allotted for that purpose. In the aftermath of Israel’s War of Independence, in which it repelled the invasion by five Arab armies, the West Bank, Gaza and half of Jerusalem, were left in Arab hands. But for the next 19 years when these territories remained under Arab control, there was never any consideration given to creating an Arab state there. On the contrary, the focus of the Arab world was on extinguishing the fledgling state of Israel that existed in the truncated borders left by the 1949 armistice lines.

    In the years after the 1967 war, Israel has maintained a willingness to negotiate a peace deal based on the concept of “land for peace.” Indeed, at Camp David in July 2000 and the following January at Taba, Egypt, Israel offered the Palestinians a state in these lands as well as part of Jerusalem. The answer from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was “no,” and he followed up that refusal by launching a terrorist war of attrition that resulted in over a thousand Jewish deaths and even more suffering on the part of his own people.

    Myth #5: The plight of Palestinian refugees is a special case of dispossession that must be redressed by international action.

    In the aftermath of World War II, millions of refugees were created by the partition of India, the re-drawing of the map of Europe, as well as by the war brought on by the Arab refusal to accept the UN’s partition of Palestine. Only in the case of Palestinians who fled their home during the course of Israel’s War of Independence, was there a failure to re-settle the refugees. The Palestinian refugees, whose exit from the country was caused more by a general fear of the war sweeping over the land than by any action on the part of the Israelis, were the only refugees who were kept in camps and not allowed to integrate into the populations of the Arab countries that received them. They were kept homeless as a means of maintaining the illusion that the creation of Israel could be undone. Subsequent generations of this population have been raised in these camps and inculcated in an irredentist ideology whose premise is the rejection of any Jewish state. They remain the wards of a UN agency (the United Nations Relief Works Agency) that is devoted to perpetuating their status as refugees at a cost of billions of dolllars on international aid.

    On the other hand, several hundred thousand Jews living in Arab countries were evicted from their homes during this same era and forced to flee to safety in Israel or the West — where they were integrated into society.

    Myth #6: The occupation of eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights in 1967 was the result of an Israeli war of aggression.

    In May 1967, Egypt launched a blockade of Israel’s southern port of Eilat. Egyptian and Syrian forces massed on Israel’s borders. Egypt demanded, and got, the UN peacekeeping force that separated their army from Israel in the Sinai, to withdraw. Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdul Nasser and other Arab leaders told their peoples that they would soon launch a battle of annihilation that would result in Israel’s destruction. When international diplomacy failed to get the Arabs to back down, Israel decided that it would not wait to be attacked and launched a defensive war to forestall the Arab assault.

    After the war ended in a sweeping Israeli victory, Israel stated its willingness to make peace, but an Arab summit conference a month later answered with three no’s. No peace. No recognition. No negotiations.

    Myth #7: Jewish settlements are the main, if not the sole, obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

    Though many legal sources claim that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, the fact remains that the right of Jewish settlement in those lands was guaranteed by the Mandate for Palestine of the League of Nations. This territory was never part of any other sovereign state and its final legal status is subject to negotiations that must be concluded between the competing parties. Until such time as there is a peace accord which gives one side or the other sovereignty in this territory, it is inaccurate to refer to this land as belonging to one side or another.

    Twice before, Israel has shown a willingness to uproot Jewish communities for the sake of peace: in the Sinai (given back to Egypt in the 1979 Peace Treaty) and in Gaza (from which Israel withdrew unilaterally in 2005). The existence of settlements in these areas is no bar to a peace deal under which they might be withdrawn.

    Myth #8: The failure of the Oslo peace process was the result of actions by hard-line Israeli governments.

    The Oslo process was embraced by Israel in the hope that an offer of land would be met with genuine peace. However, the result of years of negotiations and various Israeli withdrawals has not been peace. From the start of Palestinian Authority rule in the West Bank and Gaza in 1994, Palestinian leadership has encouraged terrorism against Israel and fomented hatred against the Jewish state — while “peace education” is promulgated in Israeli schools. Throughout the 1990s as Israel signed several agreements that gave the Palestinians more autonomy, the corrupt PA leadership continued to tolerate and even fund terror groups. In 2000, Yasser Arafat refused Israel’s offer of a Palestinian state in virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza as well as part of Jerusalem — and launched the terror offensive known as the Second Intifada.

    Though all Israeli governments have, at times, been forced to reply with force to terrorist attacks from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank, all have stated a willingness to negotiate a peace. Today the Palestinians are split between the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas which is too weak to make peace and Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, who reject it under any circumstances. Both factions reject the legitimacy of a Jewish state.

    Myth #9: The Arab-Israeli conflict is the key to all of America’s political, diplomatic and military problems in the Middle East.

    The battle over Israel/Palestine is but one of many disputes in the Middle East. The rivalry between the two great Muslim religious strains, Shia and Sunni, has been the source of more wars and more bloodshed than any battle between Arabs and Jews. Similarly, the tensions between Persians (modern day Iran with its Islamist rulers and nuclear ambitions) and Arabs is another perennial conflict that predates the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the region.

    Even more to the point, the conflict between radical Islamists who seek to impose their religious and political views on the rest of the Muslim world, and those who oppose them in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. It is this schism which is at the core of the rise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It is this battle for the soul of Islam that gave the impetus to the 9/11 attacks, not the dispute over the borders of the Jewish state.

    Though Israel’s foes claim that resentment over its creation fuels Arab and Islamic resentment of the West, such sentiments long predate the rise of Zionism. The clash of civilizations between Islam and the West was the cause of wars between European nations and Muslim countries for centuries with no Jewish involvement. Linking world peace to a resolution of the Palestinian conflict is just another tactic of rejectionist groups bent on perpetuating the conflict and diverting attention from the real issues.

    Myth #10: American support for Israel is the result of the manipulations of the U.S. government by Jews.

    Support for the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland dates back to the very beginning of American history. Sympathy for the idea of a renewed Jewish state is rooted in the faith of most Americans, as well as in their belief that the persecuted Jewish people were entitled to find a new life in their old home. From the very beginnings of the Zionist movement, it found both a welcome and support from large numbers of Americans. In the aftermath of the Holocaust that support became even greater.

    Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans of all faiths and both major political parties see Israel as a friend and an ally. They need no prodding from a Jewish lobby to understand that the alliance with the Jewish state is based on common values and a shared belief in democracy. While Israel’s supporters in Washington are vocal and proud of it, their financial clout is dwarfed by that of an oil industry and other factions with a vested interest in appeasing Arab dictators and monarchs. But the American people’s identification with Israel and their sense of solidarity with it have prevailed because these ideas are rooted deeply in American history and tradition.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      James,

      Posting others’ work without attribution is called “plagiarism”. You are not the author of this list. My response follows:

      “Myth #1: Jews have no historic connection to Israel/Palestine.”

      Strawman fallacy. Nobody denies the historic connection. Bottom line: That historic connection does not give the Jews any legal right to the land, nor does it justify their crimes against the Palestinians, their ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and their theft of Arab lands.

      “Myth #2: Jews have no unique claim to the ancient and holy city of Jerusalem.”

      Strawman. Nobody argues this. Bottom line: The Israeli annexation of Jerusalem is illegal under international law.

      “Myth #3: The Zionist movement was never prepared to share the land.

      True. From the very beginning, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Hertzl, wrote in his journal that he wished to “spirit the penniless population” out of Palestine.

      Most of the Zionist leadership rejected partition. David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann favored the idea, but only as a strategic move towards taking the whole of Palestine, by force, if necessary, as Ben-Gurion wrote.

      “Myth #4: The lack of an independent Palestinian Arab state is the fault of the Zionists.”

      True. The U.N. Partition proposal called for the minority Jews, who owned 7% of the land, to be given more than half of Palestine, while the majority Arabs who owned 86% of Palestine, were to receive less than half of their own land. The Jews would give up no land to the Arabs, but the Arabs would give up enormous swaths to the Jews.

      The UN Special Commission on Palestine that recommended partition explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. The Arabs proposed that the independence of Palestine be recognized and a representative government including Jews be established under a constitution that recognized the rights of the Jewish minority.

      The Zionists and their Western benefactors rejected that democratic solution, and the Zionists then unilaterally, with no legal authority, declared the existence of Israel, and subsequently ethnically cleansed Palestine, never allowing Arabs to return to their own homes and lands.

      Israel and the U.S. have since consistently blocked the implementation of a two-state solution.

      The “offer” made to Yasser Arafat consisted of negative concessions on the part of Israel. All the concessions were expected of the Arabs. ALL of the illegally occupied territories belong to the Arabs. ALL of the Israeli colonies in the territories are illegal.

      “Myth #5: The plight of Palestinian refugees is a special case of dispossession that must be redressed by international action.”

      True. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine created the refugee problem that exists today. Under international law, all refugees have a recognized right of return to their homelands.

      “Myth #6: The occupation of eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights in 1967 was the result of an Israeli war of aggression.”

      True. See my article.

      “Myth #7: Jewish settlements are the main, if not the sole, obstacle to peace in the Middle East.”

      Debatable. Israeli violence against Palestinians is also a major contributing factor, as is Israel’s policy of blocking any two-state settlement — of which the continued settlement activity is only a part.

      The illegality of Israeli settlements is not a “claim”, it is a fact of law. The claim that Jews have a “right” to settle the Palestinian territories that was “guaranteed by the Mandate for Palestine of the League of Nations” is a fabrication.

      The Israeli withdraws from the Sinai and Gaza were not concessions, as both occupations were illegal under international law and as Israel had no legal right to those lands.

      “Myth #8: The failure of the Oslo peace process was the result of actions by hard-line Israeli governments.”

      True. Israel was unwilling to make any concessions to the Palestinians, and then ended the talks when Arafat was unwilling to accept Israeli annexation of major swaths of the West Bank, Israeli control of Palestine’s borders, its airspace, Israeli military outposts within Palestine, Jewish-only highways dividing the West Bank into cantons, Israeli control of the aquifer, etc.

      “Myth #9: The Arab-Israeli conflict is the key to all of America’s political, diplomatic and military problems in the Middle East.”

      Agreed. Ending U.S. aggression against other states is also crucial to solving its political, diplomatic and military problems in the ME.

      Arguably, however, U.S. support for Israeli crimes against Palestinians is the leading factor contributing to U.S. problems internationally, and was the leading motivation for the 9/11 attacks.

      “Myth #10: American support for Israel is the result of the manipulations of the U.S. government by Jews.”

      Agreed. The Israeli lobby is a factor, particularly in the Congress, but U.S. policy makers primarily have their own perceived self-interests in mind.

      • glennk

        Jews have far more of a prior claim to Israel then Europeans have to North and South America, I don’t see the European Imperialists who took over these two huge continents handing over their deeds to the remaining native populations, do you? Instead, what we have is the JEWS being scapegoated by many of these same people for doing nothing more then re-occupying land they lived on for over 3 K yrs. In other words, most of the people whining about how the Jews stole Palestine are hypocrites.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          If you are attempting to charge me with hypocrisy, you just did the worst job of it I’ve ever seen.

        • Liadan

          Most European Jews have no DNA connection to the ancient Israelites. Those Jews never lived in Israel. The Jews that remained were Palestinians. Some remained Jewish, others converted to Christianity, and most became Muslim. Palestinians are the true heirs to the Israelite Kingdom.

      • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

        Jerusalem, in short, has been the focal point of the idea of Jewish national self-determination on Jewish historical land. Ernst Frankenstein, a British-based
        authority on international law in the inter-war period, made the case for
        arguing the legal rights of the Jewish people to restore their homeland by
        stating that they never relinquished title to their land after the Roman
        conquests. For that to have happened, the Romans and their Byzantine successors
        would have had to be in “continuous and undisturbed possession” of the land
        with no claims being voiced. Yet Jewish resistance movements continued for
        centuries, most of which were aimed at liberating Jerusalem.2

        From the standpoint of international law, the fact that the Jewish people never renounced their historic connection to their ancestral homeland provided the basis for their assertion of their historical rights.3 This came to be understood by those who
        wrote about the Jewish legal claim to the Land of Israel, as a whole. In the Blackstone Memorial, which was signed by Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Melville Fuller, university presidents, and members of Congress before it was submitted to President
        Benjamin Harrison in 1891, Palestine is characterized as “an inalienable possession” of the Jewish people “from which they were expelled by force.”4 In short, they did not voluntarily abandon their land or forget their rights. is was most fervently expressed through centuries of lamentation for Jerusalem’s destruction and their constant prayer for its restoration.

        Jerusalem was the focal point for the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

        That is why it is essential to understand Israel’s rights in Jerusalem, as they were known once before.

        That is also why it is necessary to identify the arguments that have been
        employed in recent years with the aim of eroding those rights, and the
        conviction that once underpinned them, in order to protect Jerusalem for future generations. In addition to the historical rights of the Jewish people to Jerusalem that were voiced in the nineteenth century, and were just brie y reviewed, there is a whole new layer of legal rights that Israel acquired in modern times that need to be fully
        elaborated upon.

        MODERN SOURCES OF ISRAEL’S INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS IN JERUSALEM

        In 1970, three years after the 1967 Six-Day War, an article appearing in the most prestigious international legal periodical, The American Journal of International Law,
        touched directly on the question of Israel’s rights in Jerusalem.5 It became a
        critical reference point for Israeli ambassadors speaking at the UN in the
        immediate decades that followed and also found its way into their speeches. The
        article was written by an important, but not yet well-known, legal scholar
        named Stephen Schwebel. In the years that followed, Schwebel’s stature would
        grow immensely with his appointment as the legal advisor of the U.S. Department
        of State, and then finally when he became the President of the International
        Court of Justice in the Hague. In retrospect, his legal opinions mattered and were worth considering very carefully.

        Schwebel wrote his article, which was entitled “What Weight to Conquest,” in response to a statement by then Secretary of State William Rogers that Israel was only entitled to “insubstantial alterations” in the pre-1967 lines. The Nixon administration had also hardened U.S. policy on Jerusalem as reacted in its statements and voting patterns in
        the UN Security Council. Schwebel strongly disagreed with this approach: he
        wrote that the pre-war lines were not sacrosanct, for the 1967 lines were not
        an international border. Formally, they were only armistice lines from 1949. As
        he noted, the armistice agreement itself did not preclude the territorial
        claims of the parties beyond those lines. Significantly, he explained that when
        territories are captured in a war, the circumstances surrounding the outbreak
        of the conflict directly affect the legal rights of the two sides, upon its termination.

        Two facts from 1967 stood out that influenced his thinking:

        First, Israel had acted in the Six-Day War in the lawful exercise
        of its right of self-defense. Those familiar with the events that led to its
        outbreak recall that Egypt was the party responsible for the initiation of
        hostilities, through a series of steps that included the closure of the Straits
        of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the proclamation of a blockade on Eilat, an
        act that Foreign Minister Abba Eban would characterize as the ring of the first shot of the war. Along Israel’s eastern front, Jordan’s artillery had opened fire and re-pounding civilian neighborhoods in Jerusalem, despite repeated warnings issued by Israel.

        Given this background, Israel had not captured territory as a result of aggression,
        but rather because it had come under armed attack. In fact, the Soviet Union
        had tried to have Israel labeled as the aggressor in the UN Security Council on
        June 14, 1967, and then in the UN General Assembly on July 4, 1967. But Moscow completely failed. At the Security Council it was outvoted 11-4. Meanwhile at the General Assembly, 88 states voted against or abstained on the first vote of a proposed Soviet draft (only 32 states supported it). It was patently clear to the majority of UN members that Israel had waged a defensive war.6

        A second element in Schwebel’s thinking was the fact Jordan’s claim to legal title over the territories it had lost to Israel in the Six-Day War was very problematic. The
        Jordanian invasion of the West Bank – and Jerusalem – nineteen years earlier in 1948 had been unlawful.
        As a result, Jordan did not gain legal rights in the years that followed, given
        the legal principle, that Schwebel stressed, according to which no right can be
        born of an unlawful act (ex injuria jus non oritur). It should not have come as
        a surprise that Jordan’s claim to sovereignty over the West Bank was not recognized by anyone, except for Pakistan and Britain. Even the British would not recognize the Jordanian claim in Jerusalem itself.

        Thus, by comparing Jordan’s illegal invasion of the West Bank to Israel’s legal exercise of its right of self-defense, Schwebel concluded that “Israel has better title” in the
        territory of what once was the Palestine Mandate than either of the Arab states
        with which it had been at war. He specifically stated that Israel had better legal title to “the whole of Jerusalem.”

        Schwebel makes reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967, which over the years would become the main source
        for all of Israel’s peace e orts, from the 1979 Egyptian Israeli Treaty
        of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Accords. In its famous withdrawal clause, Resolution
        242 did not call for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the
        territories it captured in the Six-Day War. ere was no e ort to re-establish
        the status quo ante, which, as noted earlier, was the product of a previous act
        of aggression by Arab armies in 1948.

        As the U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1967, Arthur Goldberg,
        pointed out in 1980, Resolution 242 did not even mention Jerusalem “and this omission was deliberate.” Goldberg made the point, reacting the policy of the Johnson administration for whom he served, that he never described Jerusalem as “occupied territory,” though this changed under President Nixon.7 What Goldberg wrote about Resolution 242 had added weight, given the fact that he previously had served as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

        Indeed, among the leading jurists in international law and diplomacy, Schwebel was clearly not alone. He was joined by Julius Stone, the great Australian legal scholar, who reached the same conclusions. He added that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan) did not undermine Israel’s subsequent claims in Jerusalem. True, Resolution 181 envisioned that Jerusalem and its environs would become a corpus separatum, or a separate international entity. But Resolution 181 was only a recommendation of the General Assembly. It was rejected by the Arab states forcibly, who invaded the nascent State of Israel in 1948.

        Ultimately, the UN’s corpus separatum never came into being in any case. The UN did not protect the Jewish population of Jerusalem from invading Arab armies. Given this history, it was not surprising that Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, announced on December 3, 1949, that Revolution 181’s references to Jerusalem were “null and void,” thereby anticipating Stone’s legal analysis years later.8

        There was also Prof. Elihu Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, who for a time served as legal advisor of Australia and as a judge ad hoc of the International Court of
        Justice in The Hague.

        Lauterpacht argued that Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 was legally valid. 9 He explained that the last state which had sovereignty over Jerusalem was the Ottoman Empire, which ruled it from 1517 to 1917.

        After the First World War, the Ottoman Empire formally renounced its sovereignty over Jerusalem as well as all its former territories south of what became modern Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres from 1920. is renunciation was confirmed by the Turkish Republic as well in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. According to Lauterpacht, the rights of sovereignty in Jerusalem were vested with the Principal Allied and Associated
        Powers, which transferred them to the League of Nations.

        But with the dissolution of the League of Nations, the British withdrawal from Mandatory Palestine, and the failure of the UN to create a corpus separatum or a special international regime for Jerusalem, as had been intended according to the 1947 Partition Plan, Lauterpacht concluded that sovereignty had been put in suspense or in
        abeyance. In other words, by 1948 there was what he called “a vacancy of
        sovereignty” in Jerusalem.

        It might be asked if the acceptance by the pre-state Jewish Agency of Resolution 181 constituted a conscious renunciation of Jewish claims to Jerusalem back in 1947. However, according to the resolution, the duration of the special international regime for Jerusalem would be “in the first instance for a period of ten years.” The resolution envisioned a referendum of the residents of the city at that point in which they would express “their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the city.”10 The Jewish leadership interpreted the corpus separatum as an interim arrangement that could be replaced. They believed that Jewish residents could opt for citizenship in the Jewish state in the meantime. Moreover, they hoped that the referendum would lead to the corpus seperatum being joined to the State of Israel after ten years. 11

        Who then could acquire sovereign rights in Jerusalem given the “vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht described? Certainly, the UN could not assume a role, given what happened to Resolution 181. Lauterpacht’s answer was that Israel filled “the vacancy in sovereignty” in areas where the Israel Defense Forces had to operate in order to save Jerusalem’s Jewish population from destruction or ethnic
        cleansing. The same principle applied again in 1967, when Jordanian forces
        opened fire on Israeli neighborhoods and the Israel Defense Forces entered the
        eastern parts of Jerusalem, including its Old City, in self-defense.

        A fourth legal authority to contribute to this debate over the legal rights of Israel was Prof. Eugene Rostow, the former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson administration. Rostow’s point of departure for analyzing the issue of Israel’s rights was that the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically referred to “the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” providing “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

        These rights applied to Jerusalem as well, for the Mandate did not separate Jerusalem from the other territory that was to become part of the Jewish national home.

        Rostow contrasts the other League of Nations mandates with the mandate for Palestine. Whereas the mandates for Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon served as trusts for the indigenous populations, the language of the Palestine Mandate was entirely different. It supported the national rights of the Jewish people while protecting only the civil and
        religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in British Mandatory
        Palestine.12 It should be added that the Palestine Mandate was a legal
        instrument in the form of a binding international treaty between the League of
        Nations, on the one hand, and Britain as the mandatory power, on the other.

        Rostow argued that the mandate was not terminated in 1947. He explained that Jewish legal rights to a national home in this territory, which were embedded in British Mandatory Palestine, survived the dissolution of the League of Nations and were preserved by the United Nations in Article 80 of the UN Charter.13 Clearly, after
        considering Rostow’s arguments, Israel was well-positioned to assert its rights
        in Jerusalem and fill “the vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht had
        described.

      • XtreeemMetalman

        You want a pure Arab Palestine. Odd for someone named Jeremy Hammond. At least by Arab.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          You are projecting. It is Zionists like you who advocate statehood based on race.

    • Eldarus

      When you stop using history books for toilet paper purpose you might find our THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GOT CONNECTION TO HOLY LAND ARE JEWS. There was NO OTHER country but ISRAEL in that region. Tell me smart …ss if Arabs “Palestinians” has connection for 2000, where’s the country??? Why there are plenty evidence by people who visited the region that it was Deserted and Empty??? You simply got no prove but words, while Jews poses facts you’r trying to ignore by playing with minds of uneducated Mass.

      • Moldovar

        Another paid Edomite shill.

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

        Israel didn’t exist until 1948. The historical kingdom by the same name ceased to exist hundreds of years B.C. At the time of the Zionist’s unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land. Most of the land was owned by the majority Arab community.

        You would know all this if you stopped using history books for toilet paper.

        • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

          I am sorry to tell you, but you are wrong. My family is from Yemen, my grandfather used to own there a large farm and other assets. My grandfather had informed me that the family kept a family tree of our descendants going back all the way to the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            And your family’s genealogy illustrates I am wrong on which point and in what way?

        • Chris. K Cook

          But if you are going to use the ‘they were there first’ argument the Jews win every time.

      • Liadan

        Although your ‘facts’ are all wrong, it wouldn’t matter if Palestinians arrived the day before the first European Jews arrived in Israel. they were still there first. Palestinians tho, are the descendants of every group that has ever lived there, starting with the Canaanites.

        • XtreeemMetalman

          You’re using racial blood and soil fascism.

    • Liadan

      I believe Pagans pre-date the Israelis, and solomon had pagan idols in the temple too. And who were these Pagans? Canaanites, the ancestors of the Palestinians.

      • Chris. K Cook

        The Canaanites have no descendants. The Palestinians are descendants of 1st Caliphate and later Arabs.

  • LT
    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Thanks for sharing the link, LT.

    • Mehmet

      As long as the Jewsih media pay for it, it would be published.

  • pseudopod

    But we do know those who deny that Israel regularly targets Palestinians with rockets from aircraft, keeps around 11000 Palestinians in prison, and maintains an illegal blockade of Gaza denying it important medical supplies – namely most of the US media by their silence on these matters.

  • http://thelastcrusade.org Jen

    A gala event has occurred in Gaza.

    Hamas sponsored a mass wedding for four hundred and fifty couples.
    Most of the grooms were in their mid to late twenties; most of brides were under ten.

    Muslim dignitaries including Mahmud Zahar, a leader of Hamas, were on hand to congratulate the couples who took part in the carefully staged celebration.

    We are saying to the world and to America that you cannot deny us joy and happiness, Zahar told the grooms, all of whom were dressed in identical black suits and hailed from the nearby Jabalia refugee camp.

    Each groom received a gift of 500 dollars from Hamas.

    The pre-pubescent girls, dressed in white gowns and adorned with garish make-up, received bridal bouquets.

    We are presenting this wedding as a gift to our people who stood firm in the face of the siege and the war, Local Hamas strongman Ibrahim Salaf said in a speech.

    The wedding photos tell the rest of the sordid tale.

    Paedo Pals

    The International Center for Research on Women now estimates that there are 51 million child brides now living on planet earth and almost all in Muslim countries.

    Twenty-nine percent of these child brides are regularly beaten and molested by their husbands in Egypt ; twenty six percent receive similar abuse in Jordan .

    Every year, three million Muslim girls are subjected to genital mutilation, according to UNICEF. This practice has not been outlawed in many parts of America .

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      This claim of a mass wedding of “pre-pubescent girls” is false. Take your propaganda elsewhere. It is not welcome here.

      • LT

        This propaganda reminds me of paedophile prophet propaganda. The rationale is always the same; Islam is a religion of perversion. The real perverts are those who invented these lies. The best reply to you Jem; some Muslim girls marry before 18, thats right, but do not forget those girls losing their virginity or being pregnant just at 12-13 in your so called civil world. Muslims did not invent child pornography, perverts.

        • Trym Stein Hagen

          Of course they didn’t. Since they didn’t have the technology at that time. But when it comes to exploiting pre-pubescent girls the arab world has always been worse than the western world, because it has been a taboo in the western world for far longer, and there are far more and stricter laws against it.

    • Mehmet

      Yeah, right… Will you please mention the number of kids abused in Western countries ( in Australia it is one of every three and by one of their relatives) or the number of rich Western “men” paying a fortune to have ” the first night “fantasy in Thailand or Philippines with girls as little as 10 which they couldnt with their own wives? And let’s remember the Austrian men who had more than 7 children from his own DAUGHTER. You are right mate… Muslims have a lot to learn from you…

  • Vanessa

    I thought it might be interesting to chip in a recent theoretical discussion that emerged from Jean-Paul Gagnon’s work. He showed that it is more beneficent for a state to secede a territory that has an overwhelming majority in favor of independence. It could benefit the state seceding territory economically, peacefully, and democratically. It is also, in a democratic sense, the only legitimate thing to do as a portion of its citizenry would be wanting independence. Israel has no legitimacy over Palestine in this respect. All citizenries, and those groups composing the plurality, have a right to self-government. Let’s take a step in the right direction, and continue to solve the rest of the problems from a more positive vantage.

  • arab muslim

    Greetings to all. The reasons for Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestine.
    Palestine Arab Islamic state like the rest of the Arab and Islamic states surrounding
    Them. Means that there are Jews and Zionists in Palestine a big mistake, because this entity
    Zionist is not consistent with the surrounding area (such as language, customs, traditions and religion)
    The only solution to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is the expulsion of Jews from Palestine
    All of Palestine. The Jewish people will not rest and will not feel comfortable and stability
    But if it gets out of Palestine and the Middle East completely. If people continue to
    Jews in Palestine and the Middle East, the death and destruction will continue.
    Palestine Arab Islamic state and will remain

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      “The only solution to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is the expulsion of Jews from Palestine All of Palestine.”

      It’s precisely hateful comments like that which Zionists grasp onto in order to justify their policies, thus allowing them to continue their occupation and other crimes. Wise up.

      • http://mrtapeguy.wordpress.com mrtapeguy

        It is not a matter of simply “hateful comments.” It is a matter of hateful behavior.

        When Israel made its Declaration, the neighboring Arab nations (who also were not owners or in control of the land) invaded the new state. What was their right to declare war against another country that had not invaded THEIR land but put down a stake next door in an area controlled by the British? If they had a beef, would it not have been appropriate to attempt to negotiate peacefully? Alas, that was not their way and Al-Hassani, the father of violent anti-Zionism certainly didn’t encourage negotiations.

        So then, when the indigenous Arabs were told by their invading brethren to get out or be considered complicit with the Jews and the Israelis don’t allow them back in amidst fears of a hostile minority, suddenly it’s a matter of premeditated ethnic cleansing…which makes no sense since 20% of the Israeli population is Israeli Arabs with greater equality and rights than they have in their own countries.

        That doesn’t change what was written into the Declaration – a plea for indigenous Arabs to stay and share the land in peace. In addition, there is also a distinction to be made between ownership of the land and control of it. Public sector sovereignty does not equate to private land ownership and at no time did the Zionists say that private landowners would not be able to keep their land if they did not wish to sell it. One can argue that the Jews received a larger partition of the area that was justified by the population or land ownership but that doesn’t mean the land was literally stolen and since multiple Arab leaders stated clearly that the Jews should not be allocated ANY land whatsoever, one wonders what sort of “fair” allocation could have been worked out. The Zionists were not looking to take over the entire region but some of their opponents didn’t want them to have ANY, which is not a great environment for compromise.

        Your claims that there was premeditated ethnic cleansing in Palestine are unsubstantiated except as supposedly documented by Pappe whose work is full of contradictions and logical fallacies. From growing up with people involved in the Zionist movement in both Europe and Israel, I know that the movement overall was intended as a peaceful method of achieving a Jewish state but not at the expense of indigenous Arabs. This is written in the Declaration of Eretz Yisrael. However, with violent opposition from the Grand Mufti and others that transcended anti-Zionism and did indeed include anti-Semitism that was rampant at the time, the conditions certainly helped extremists develop among Zionists as well.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          When Israel made its Declaration, the neighboring Arab nations (who also were not owners or in control of the land) invaded the new state.

          Ownership of the land did not transfer to the Zionists by virtue of a unilateral declaration of statehood on land they owned only 7% of.

          By the time the neighboring Arab states “invaded” Palestine, the Zionists had already ethnically cleansed a quarter million Palestinians.

          The land was “literally” stolen, yes. Very literally.

    • XtreeemMetalman

      1 Thing: There is no other Jewish State. It is not like kicking out the British to Britain or the French to France. And I don’t know why Jewish/Muslim can’t live together? You seem like a Chauvinist to me tbh.

  • James

    Arab propoganda !
    Why are you showing a picture of a tank???
    Why don’t you show pictures of suicide bombers and blown up mall ?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      I invite you to point out any error in fact or logic you think is present in anything I wrote, James.

      • Trym Stein Hagen

        I invite you to present sources for anything you’ve written. The world isn’t as black and white as you think, more like different shades of gray

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          Okay. In the first sentence, I said Arabs were a majority in Palestine. Here’s a source for that:

          UN General Assembly, United Nations Special
          Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1, A/364 (September 3, 1947), http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3.

          My invitation to James is open to you, as well, to point out any error in fact or logic you think is present in anything I wrote.

  • Dave Kersting

    I would only suggest that people stop referring to Israel’s adversaries as “Arabs.” Identifying Israel’s victims by an ethnic (or religious) characteristic is partly false and very misleading – and it plays into the Zionist wish to portray the conflict in racial terms. In reality, the predominant ethnicity of those in the region the Zionists chose for their expressly racist “Jewish” state has never been relevant. The ethnic-cleansing was based solely on the victims’ failure to be sufficiently “Jewish.” If the locals had been Chinese or Inuit or Amish, the history would be much the same. It’s also important to note that “Palestinian” does not apply to ethnicity or religion: it has always applied to anyone with legitimate right to live in “Palestine,” and this group has always included many ethnicities and religions, including “Jewish,” of course. The conflict will end only when those taxpayers who would not KNOWINGLY finance overt ethnic and religious prejudice begin to raise some audible objection to their governments’ financing of any such policies, by anyone involved – same as everywhere else. The fact that this would lead to a single egalitarian state – all legal claims and complaints addressed without reference to anyone’s religion or ethnicity – is merely an incidental consequence of justice itself.

    • Liadan

      Excellent point. And there are no “Israeli” Arabs. There are Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, second=hand tho it may be.

  • YJ Draiman

    End the Unjust Arab Occupation of Jewish Land

    NO PALESTINIAN STATE – No land concessions R7.

    Imagine that the various people who settled in the United States for the past 300 years decided one day that they one to parcel the United States into an independent State just for them, would the American public go for it. The Answer is absolutely NO.

    The situation in Israel today is no different. The Arabs there are not Palestinians, there is no such Arab nation as Palestine or Palestinian people.

    Europeans countries today are consisting of numerous people from other countries. Would the Europeans people cede part of their country to set up another State in their midst. The answer is absolutely NO.

    Archeological excavations and historical data is the best proof Israel belongs to the Jewish Nation and non-other.

    All the Arabs in Israel and surrounding areas are from the various Arab nations, such as Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and other Arab nations.

    Transfer all Arabs from Israel to Jewish Land and Homes confiscated by Arab Countries.

    Prominent PLO Arab says there are no ‘Palestinians’ and no “Palestine”

    PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a March 31, 1977 interview with a Dutch newspaper Trouw.

    “The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. ”

    The Qur’an 17:104 – states the land belongs to the Jewish people

    If the historic documents, comments written by eyewitnesses and declarations by the most authoritative Arab scholars are still not enough, let us quote the most important source for Muslim Arabs:

    “And thereafter we [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd’.”.

    017.104
    YUSUFALI: And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
    PICKTHAL: And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
    SHAKIR: And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.

    – Qur’an 17:104 –

    Any sincere Muslim must recognize the Land they call “Palestine” as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by Muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah’s ultimate revelation.

    Any building of housing in The Greater Israel is the right and duty of the Israeli government. There is no such a thing as occupied territory. It is the land of Israel for over 4,000 years.

    Sequence of historical events, agreements and a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem and the rest of Israel totaling approximately 45,000 square miles, as mandated by the League of Nations in July of 1922. The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I – Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan – agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel. (You might as well break apart Syria which was mandated at the same time).

    YJ Draiman.

    PS

    20 Years of Research Reveals Jerusalem Belongs to Jews

    (IsraelNN.com) Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, has concluded: “Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.”.

    Gauthier has written a doctoral dissertation on the topic of Jerusalem and its legal history, based on international treaties and resolutions of the past 90 years. The dissertation runs some 1,300 pages, with 3,000 footnotes. Gauthier had to present his thesis to a world-famous Jewish historian and two leading international lawyers – the Jewish one of whom has represented the Palestinian Authority on numerous occasions.

    Gauthier’s main point, as summarized by Israpundit editor Ted Belman, is that a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem. The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I – Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan – agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel.

    We must unleash the wrath of G-D against the enemies of Israel and those collaborating with the enemy.

    End the Unjust Arab Occupation of Jewish Land

    Bible, Zechariah 1:14 Thus says the L-RD of hosts, “I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and Zion.” Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Jewish Bible, NOT once in the Koran. Psalm 135:12 “He gave their land as a heritage to Israel His people.” Thousands of years ago, G-D foretold in Bible the present-day murderous hate for Israel. Psalm 83 They have said, “Come and let us wipe them out as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more. For they have conspired together with one mind; against You they make a covenant”. The Bible makes it clear that the war is against G-D.

    http://einshalom.com/archives/57

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Justifying Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine by invoking U.S. ethnic cleansing of North America. Brilliant.

      • Kelly Robinson

        Jeremy, I took the time to read and give great thought to what you wrote, please dignify my time and attention by reading the following:
        Thomas Ice said it best and by all accounts I give him credit for the following:
        INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JERUSALEM
        by Thomas Ice
        The Bible teaches that God gave to the Jewish people the land of Israel. This is repeated many times throughout the Bible. God’s viewpoint on this matter is what ultimately matters since He will at some point in the future implement His will. If God says something then that settles it, that decree will surely come to pass. However, it is interesting to note that international law is and has always been on the side of the reestablishment of the modern state of Israel. Furthermore, the law also supports the claim that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews and that the Arabs have no legitimate legal claim upon Judaism’s most holy location.
        JACQUES PAUL GAUTHIER
        Canadian lawyer Jacques Paul Gauthier recently finished a twenty-year project in which this Gentile Christian researched at the University of Geneva political science department and international law school, the legal issues relating to the ownership of Israel and Jerusalem. Gauthier’s PhD thesis was completed in 2007 and is entitled:
        “Sovereignty Over The Old City of Jerusalem.” Dr. Gauthier has demonstrated in painstaking detail in his thesis of over 1,200 pages the following conclusion:
        After our examination of the principles of international law pertaining to
        belligerent occupation, we have concluded that Israel has the right to occupy
        the territories under its control since 1967, including East Jerusalem and its
        Old City, until a peace treaty is concluded. Since Gauthier’s publication was a PhD thesis, he had to painstakingly document every opinion or conclusion with legal and historical facts. Had the readers of his thesis
        not agreed with the information in his work they would not have accepted Gauthier’s thesis. This means that Gauthier’s work is the most authoritative opinion covering the international status of the old city of Jerusalem and the land of Israel. So what is Dr. Gauthier’s argument?
        GREAT BRITAIN’S ROLE
        Gauthier notes that the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 did not have the status of international law, at least not when issued. However, it did become the official policy of the British government that bound Great Britain to pursue the founding of a future state of Israel and granting them self-determination. The United Kingdom took the next step toward founding the Jewish state when General Allenby captured Jerusalem on December 11, 1917 and then the rest of Palestine (Israel).
        On January 3, 1919 Chaim Weizmann, who was the leader and representative of the Zionist Organization on behalf of the Jewish people, met with Emir Feisal, who represented the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz. Included in an agreement that both parties agreed upon was that the Jewish people should get the land west of the Jordan River and that the old city of Jerusalem would be under Jewish control. The Paris Peace Conference began on January 18, 1919 and lasted about six months in which new borders were decided upon for parts of Europe and the Middle East and were given the force of international law. The conference was made up of the victorious Allied powers from World War I. The “Big Four” were made up of theUnited States, Great Britain, France, and Italy. Lord Balfour represented Britain. It was during the summer of 1919 that Arab opposition began to be voiced against the Feisal-
        Weizmann agreement. As a result that aspect of the conference stalled and was never agreed upon. Nevertheless, Balfour issued the following statement on August 11, 1919:
        “The four great powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age long traditions, in present needs in future hopes of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”3 The Paris Peace Conference ended without a final solution reached concerning the status of Palestine, even though there was much discussion about the matter.
        THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE
        A meeting to deal specifically with the unfinished business of Palestine, which was to be seen as an extension of the Paris Peace Conference was commenced on April 19, 1920 in San Remo, Italy. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George),France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan’s Ambassador K. Matsui. The San Remo Resolution adopted on April 25, 1920 incorporated the Balfour
        Declaration of 1917 issued by the British government. The San Remo resolution and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was adopted at the Paris Peace Conference on April 28, 1919, were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for the stewardship of Palestine was constructed. It was at San Remo that the Balfour Declaration went from being just a statement of British foreign policy to international law.
        The British Mandate was fully implemented upon approval by the Council of the
        League of Nations on September 22, 1922. However, when the parties left San Remo in April 1919 the future state of Israel was to be made up of what now constitutes the Kingdom of Jordan, as well as all the land West of the Jordan River. After September 22, 1922 what is now the Kingdom of Jordan was taken away from Palestine and became another Arab nation. This was the beginning of the trend still operative today that Israel needs to give up more land in order to be promised peace. The reality is that
        every time Israel gives up land, she experiences even less peace.
        THE MANDATE
        On July 1, 1920 the British military administration, which had controlled Palestine since December 1917, was replaced by a British civil administration covering all of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River, with its headquarters in Jerusalem. The Mandate instructed Great Britain that she would oversee Palestine with the goal of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. At the time of the issuance of the Mandate, it was believed that there were not enough Jews in the land to
        establish a nation. Thus, Great Britain was to oversee the immigration of Jews to the land and when there were enough then Palestine would become the national homeland for the Jewish people. However, normally, Britain obstructed the goal of developing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
        As the League of Nations was dissolved in 1946, the United Nations, which was founded in 1945, began to deal with the Palestine issue. The UN General Assembly passed a Partition Resolution (Resolution 181) on November 29, 147. This UN resolution adopted the necessary legal status from the League of Nations needed for Israel to declare her independence on May 14, 1948. Under 181, the land of Palestine was partitioned and part of Palestine was given to the Arabs and the rest was given to Israel, except Jerusalem was to become an international city. Gauthier tells us, “The special international regime for the corpus separatum which was to be established on or
        prior to October 1, 1948 was to remain in force for a period of ten years. At the end of that period, ‘the residents of the City shall be . . . free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the City.’” The Arabs rejected resolution 181 and attacked the Jews resulting in a larger land area for Israel when the fighting stopped in 1949. Israel’s war for independence also prevented Jerusalem from becoming an international city. The promised election by October 1959
        to determine to whom Jerusalem belonged never took place. There is no doubt that the city would have voted for Israel if an election had taken place. Thus, all of the legal rights to the Old City of Jerusalem belong to Israel and the Jews.
        CONCLUSION
        Gauthier’s work, which I have only provided a glimpse into, demonstrates that both the land of Israel and the Old City of Jerusalem belong to Israel and the Jews based upon the standards of international law. When commentators appear on the media today and start talking about how Israel is violating international law with their occupation, they are absolutely without any basis in the truth. These advocates for the Arab occupation of Jewish land have no legal basis to stand. However, that does not seem to bother them since they are lawless and many hope through jihad to take over Israel. Most of these spokesmen really do not care about the law, international or
        otherwise. The facts are that both the Bible and even international law says that the land of Israel and Jerusalem belong to the Jewish people. The fact that many within the international community know this information means nothing. Today the Gentile nations are in an uproar, while increasingly clamoring for the extermination of the nation and people of Israel. Yet, the hand of God’s providence has restored His people to their land while still primarily in unbelief. We increasingly see the lawless attitudes of the nations constantly on display as they certainly do not care about God’s Word, nor
        do they heed the clear mandates of manmade international law. So it will be in the end, as at the beginning and throughout her history, that Israel will have to be saved by the actual hand of God as He interrupts history in order to save His people. Today’s hatred toward Israel is just a warm-up for the real heat of the furnace of the tribulation, from which God will redeem the nation of Israel through the coming of Messiah. Since mankind does not recognize God and His law, nevertheless, He will impose it upon humanity one day. I hoped you gained some insight from this-
        Jeremy, when Jesus returns..and He will soon. You can look back at this post ( I won’t be here- I’ll be in Heaven ) and say ” Kelly was right and she cared about my soul- I am praying for you, because I do care. And by the way? Are you related to Leslie Stahl from 60 minutes? I saw a recent report she did on Jerusalem and you sure have similar journalistic styles. :D
        Take care and God Bless!

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          Okay, Kelly, first of all, regarding the theological argument for the creation of Israel and for the occupation, if you actually read the Bible, you will note that Yahweh made a covenant with the descendants of Abraham, that he would be their God, and they would be his people, and he would bring them into the land of Canaan if they obeyed his commandments. And then most of the Tanakh (Old Testament) details how the Hebrews broke their covenant with Yahweh, how the sinned perpetually in all their generations, and how Yahweh warned them again and again that if they did not keep their covenant and obey his commandments, he would cast them out of the land. And then the Bible records how that happened, first to Israel, and then to her wicked sister, Judah (the tribe name from whence the word “Jew” derives). This is really the whole story of the Old Testament, so it’s pretty hard to miss. It never ceases to astonish me the kind of dishonesty and willful ignorance those who resort to the theological argument demonstrate.

          The legal argument provided is no more honest. The Balfour Declaration, the San Remo conference, the Covenant of the League of Nations, the League of Nations Mandate… We could take time to examine what those documents actually say, and what they actually mean, but it’s not necessary. The fallacy of this legal argument is that it assumes that the colonial/imperialist powers could rightfully take Palestine from its majority inhabitants, who owned most of the land and who had lived and worked it for countless generations, and hand it over to foreign immigrants who had never set foot in Palestine before. This is an arrogant imperialist and racist argument that has no basis in international law, which recognizes the inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination — the right that was denied to the Arab Palestinians then and which continues to be denied to them by Israel and the U.S. today.

          So, Kelly, I am praying for you, too, because I also care about your soul, and since you are obviously religious, I would urge you to take the time to actually READ the Bible and see what it says, and to understand the Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai by Yahweh, which Israel violates daily with its murderous covetousness, as it has done perpetually since it first came into existence through the act of war and violence and ethnic cleansing of Palestine of 750,000 of its Arab inhabitants.

          “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” — 2 Thessalonians, 2:9-11

          “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” — John 8:32

          Take care.

  • Alon

    As biased as expected. Your kind gave Hitler Czechoslovakia. Your kind would have let central America fall to communism. Your kind will see 6 million Jews dead in the name of “justice” and a Palestinian state- a people that never existed, BTW, before the 20th century. You choose what you believe but seriously man, cut the BS. Come live in ramallah for a year. Then live in Tel aviv for a year. Maybe then you’ll have the right to talk, when you see for real that it’s not black and white, and both sides are at fault here. In the meantime you can relax in your comfortable home which is probably built on land stolen from Indians or other native people. you want a just world? try mars.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Bla, bla, bla. Let me know when you’re ready to have a discussion of the facts.

      • Trym Stein Hagen

        Really mature.. you definitely made yourself look professional and unbiased there

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          Blah, blah. You can let me know when you’re ready to have a discussion of the facts, as well.

          • Trym Stein Hagen

            Doesn’t matter, you have the mentality like a child

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            I’m not the one unwilling/incapable of having a discussion of the facts. My invitation to do so remains open.

          • Sura

            I was taking your write-up quite seriously before I saw your blah-blah posts.

  • One

    “As political analyst Noam Chomsky extensively documents in his epic analysis ‘The Fateful Triangle'”…
    And here I thought Chomsky was a linguist! Thank you for clearing that up for me!

    “The truth is that from the start of the cease-fire in June until November 4, Hamas fired no rockets, despite numerous provocations from Israel…”
    Then I must have imagined the 40 something rockets being shot to Israeli territory a copule of days prior to Cast Lead and as soon as the cease fire ended. Again, thanks for the clear up! I’ll be sure to listen more carefully to the liberal, free media of Israel from now own.

    (Oh, and by the way, by “thousands of rockets” prior to Cast Lead, I do assume they mean the rockets being shot to southern Israel since 2000, with little to no response from the Israeli side, But it may be that liberal media again, spreading its lies and propaganda!)

  • http://az1800flooded.com Water Damage

    Thank you for sharing that information with us. There is some great stuff there.

  • http://draiman.org Draiman Yj

    No Spring in Palestine
    Despite the uptick in violence, it’s going to require something truly nasty or spectacular to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the front burner again.
    BY AARON DAVID MILLER | MARCH 24, 2011

    Just when you thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was in the deep freezer, things are getting hot again. Hamas and Israel are back at each others’ throats; and for the first time in four years, there’s been a terror attack in Jerusalem, killing one Israeli. The bombing capped a week of Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, which resulted in a number of civilian deaths in Gaza. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that Israelis and Palestinians watching the historic changes in the Arab World just can’t stand not to be the center of attention.

    COMMENTS (4)
    SHARE:
    Twitter

    Reddit

    Buzz

    More…
    But I do know better. And this time around, precisely because of those transformative changes, it’s going to take something truly big — either nasty or spectacular — to put the Palestinian issue back on center stage. Because right now, despite the loss of life on both sides, it’s still old hat. And here’s why:

    If the onset of the Arab spring (Egypt, Tunisia) and Arab winter (Bahrain, Libya, Yemen) suggest anything, it is that priorities have shifted away from external reference points — Israel and the United States — to the more authentic forces of internal processes of political change. I say this fully aware of the Libyan exception, where the United States and the international community is very much in the picture.

    Something truly profound is playing out in Arab capitals and countrysides: a process of ownership, the regaining of control over the Arab story (and future) by Arabs themselves. And this process of self-determination will continue to play out for years to come, affecting those Arab polities which to date have largely escaped significant change. Colonialists and Zionists are unlikely to figure as prominently in the Arab story — either as an excuse or justification.

    The debate over the centrality of the Palestinian issue to regional stability and to U.S. interests has been argued in hot and heavy fashion for years. Proponents of centrality have argued that there’s no issue more resonant or more emotional in Arab politics; none more threatening to the viability of Israel or morally unfair to Palestinians; and certainly none more likely to radicalize Arabs and Muslims around the world.

    Others have argued the opposite: that the sources of instability are deeper and broader, including turmoil within Islam, the Iranian challenge, a democracy deficit, and authoritarian regimes and extractive leaders who have bilked their public for years and kept them bottled up in a kind of Nasser time warp. Instead, they argue, the Palestinian issue has been used to distract and divert attention from meaningful reforms — a cruel deceit to keep autocrats in power.

    12NEXT Save big when you subscribe to FP. Uriel Sinai/Getty images

    Aaron David Miller is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former advisor to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state. His forthcoming book is Can America Have Another Great President?
    SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

    You might like:
    I will now blame Anderson Cooper for current events (Foreign Policy – Daniel W. Drezner )
    Did Russia’s Libya ambassador call Medvedev a traitor? (Passport)
    Palestinians Must Be Free – By Ambassador Maen Rashid Areikat (Foreign Policy)
    More dueling quotes about Libya: France’s Juppé vs. America’s Gates on the timeline for the air campaign (The Best Defense )

    SUBJECTS: ISRAEL/PALESTINE, MIDDLE EAST

    Japan Will Rebuild But Become More Inward Than Before
    It’s Already Been Proven: Military Interventions Don’t Work
    Don Tapscott
    On Why Wiki-
    Revolution Is Real
    Boomtown 2025: McKinsey’s Surprising Look Future Cities

    (4)HIDE COMMENTS LOGOUT ACCOUNT REPORT ABUSE
    VSEST
    10:42 PM ET
    March 24, 2011
    Is this coinsidence?
    This news from March 23th on http://justworldnews.org/archives/004183.html about one brave assassin and this article’s author could not be coincidence. No wonder that Mr. Miller would like the world/Arabs to forget about Palestine and his client.
    REPLY YJ DRAIMAN
    11:58 PM ET
    March 24, 2011
    YJ Draiman for Mayor of LA said…
    Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict

    Here are overlooked facts in the current Middle East situation; these were compiled by a Christian university professor. It makes sense and it’s not slanted. Jew and non-Jew –it doesn’t matter. Thank You.

    1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

    2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

    3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E., the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

    4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

    5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

    6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

    7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

    8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

    9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

    10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

    11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

    12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugeegroup in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples’ lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

    13. The Arab – Israeli Conflict: The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians.

    There is only one Jewish nation.

    The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost.

    Israel defended itself each time and won.

    14. The P.L.O.’s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

    15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

    16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

    17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

    18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

    19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

    20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

    January 2, 2011 6:08 AM

    YJ Draiman for Mayor of LA
    REPLY YJ DRAIMAN
    11:59 PM ET
    March 24, 2011
    Moral and ethical bankruptcy
    Moral and ethical bankruptcy

    Americans are finding a grotesque echo in the moral – ethical bankruptcy and worse of a substantial sector of American society.

    The “moral depravity” of “the Arabs” who kill innocent civilians. It is more than moral depravity. It is a culture that teaches, educates and breeds hate toward other societies that are not like them as they say “infidels”.

    There is no way this situation should be handled with kid gloves – when a poison strikes your body, you remove it and destroy it completely, leaving no trace of such poison.

    History has shown that these types of atrocities and acts of barbarism have increased in the past half a century and getting worse by the day.

    With today’s advancement in technology and telecommunications, the world has shrunk, events on the other side of the world affect everybody (like the Japanese Nuclear reactor fallout etc.) it affects our health our economy brings fear and uncertainty to our lives.

    The financial crisis we are facing today is the price we pay for years of neglect and government abuse of power.

    Is today’s society heading toward annihilation, you be the judge?

    YJ Draiman

    Every time there is a terrorist act, Israel should vacate an Arab village and raze it.
    REPLY YJ DRAIMAN
    12:00 AM ET
    March 25, 2011
    “Israel’s Disproportionate Restraint.”
    “Israel’s Disproportionate Restraint.”

    Israel is guilty of anything it’s of disproportionate restraint.

    Israel has the right and obligation to defend its citizens

    The brutal slaughter of a family of 5 in Itamar just shows that we are dealing with a barbaric mentality.

    Add to it the bomb at a bus stop in Jerusalem.

    The daily launching of rockets from Gaza against civilian population and schools.

    No country and government that cares about its citizens would tolerate such atrocities.

    Terror should be handled in the following manner. When a poison strikes the human body, the only way to address it, is to remove it and destroy it completely.

    It is a known fact that any country if attacked, its citizens kidnapped, rocket bombardment on a daily basis.
    Has the right and obligation to defend its citizens.

    It is sad that innocent civilians are hurt, but that is the cost of war and conflict.

    Any government and its citizen who do not resist terrorism and let terrorist organization entrench themselves in their country and utilize those countries as bases of armed terrorism against a neighboring country. Eventually pays the price for permitting such actions.

    If you gave the Arab population a vote in Israel and the west bank and Jerusalem the option to vote freely and without intimidation, you would find out, that they would rather be living under Israel’s government. They derive more stability more benefits, pensions, welfare, etc.

    If the United States or any other government were to be attacked from across the border on a daily basis, have its citizens kidnapped, rockets launched at them on a daily basis, the citizens would demand that immediate military action be initiated with no holds barred, collateral damage or not. That is the fact of life.

    Terrorist and those who support them do not know what peace is, they thrive on violence. That is the only way they control the masses. Any negotiations or compromise only strengthen those terrorist organizations. When a poison strikes the human body, the only way to address it, is to remove it and destroy it completely.
    There is no such thing as a “disproportioned response to terror.”
    Our problem today is “Israel’s Disproportionate Restraint.”
    This puts Israel and its citizens in grave danger.
    That is the way the terrorist organizations should be treated.

    “Like all sovereign nations, Israel has not only a right, but moreover, an obligation, to ensure the safety and security of her citizens”.

    As quoted in a statement “the only time of a chance for peace is, when the Arab mother would love her children more than she hates the Israelis.

    The big mistake is that people are missing the economic benefits for Israel and its neighbors. That is if there was a true peace, you take the Israeli Technology and know how, add to it the Arab labor and natural resources – and you have an economic prosperity beyond your widest dreams.
    The Qur’an 17:104 – states the land belongs to the Jewish people
    Every time there is a terrorist act, Israel should vacate an Arab village and raze it.

    YJ Draiman

  • Jeff D

    @ James
    October 12, 2010 – 12:20 am

    When are you going to provide any evidence of Palestinian suicide bombers? I mean evidence. Not media repetitions of Israeli claims and unsubstantiated unverifiable claims of responsibility which wouldn’t amount to much even if they were authentic.

    Evidence – I’m talking about proper investigations and fair trials

    Thanks

  • Rick Martin

    I wonder how many of those rockets from Gaza were Israeli false flags. Gaza’s crawling with Israeli intel and Israeli collaborators

  • http://Nond Rustynails

    Fact,#1; ishmael was born out of wedlock, to a bondservant. Isaac was born by Sarah, the wife of Abraham. So the ‘firstborn’ under a promise of God, inherents all of Abrahams land & all.

  • Ryan W

    What never ceases to amaze me is how quickly the Israelis forget their terrorist roots. One simply has to look up groups such as The Irgun, The Stern Gang and The Haganas. These groups practiced and perhaps drew the blue print for modern day terrorism in the middle east. Bombing, shooting, stabbing, beating and kidnapping innocent non-Jews was common place for these 3 groups. The King David hotel bombing is a prime example, 92 innocent people were killed in this terrorist attack. There are thousands of examples of Israeli terror to choose from, from the past to the present day. Israel has never been a “State” of peace. America should never forget The U.S.S. Liberty, the incredible amount of spies Israel sends to America and the fact that they’ve sold Americas military and Technological secrets to China and Russia.

    • Y. O.

      I suggest you look more carefully into the King David Hotel bombing – only a selected wing was blown up. Not the whole thing. That specific wing housed certain British offices and documents that based British restriction of Jewish immigration to Palestine.

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

        So, what, are you trying to justify the act of terrorism?

        • Tristan

          yup… that’s about what that was right there…

        • mattmainen

          I’ll justify it. It was an attack on a foreign, colonial administration. It was also a military target.

        • Eldarus

          It’s so funny when people like you are trying to justify the terror by making a very silly compare. The same way people like you equalize IDF to Hamas terrorists, ignoring the facts that targets are different. Hamas playing this game very well and knows to manipulate naive people like you and turning you to a tool of Islamic Jihad.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            You are right, it is not logical to compare IDF and Hamas terrorism. The IDF commits terrorism on an incomparably greater scale.

          • bengg

            it is called collateral damage. and that’s what happens when Hamas’s terrorists use their own civilians to hide their asses while launching rockets towards civilian targets in Israel you dumbass

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            It is called war crimes. That’s what happens when Israel launches indiscriminate attacks and deliberately targets civilian objects.

          • censoredbydiscuss

            The war crime is hiding rockets in civilian areas and either forcing residents to stay in their homes or not notifying them of the risks of living in that area. That is a war crime. Bombing civilian areas that house military equipment while giving notice to those people that the area is going to be targeted is hardly a war crime.

          • glennk

            Even Amnesty Int’l has confirmed these charges against Hamas and Amnesty is no friend of Israel by any means.

          • Liadan

            Actually, Human rights Watch and amnesty International condemned Israel for using Palestinians as human sheilds themselves.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Source? Or is it ‘pulled it out of my butt’ your source?

          • Chris. K Cook

            Both the UN and Amnesty cleared the IDF of War Crimes. They have however condemned Hamas.

          • Liadan

            When a country is fighting back against occupation, its self-defense.

          • glennk

            Nobody is occupying Gaza but Pals. As for Israel its NOT occupied by anyone but Israelis.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Murdering Jewish teens is not fighting back.

          • Mr rogers

            Jeremy is either a Muslim or a leftist same shit

          • Chris. K Cook

            Hey not all Lefties are Antisemite Hamas Apologists. I’m probably more leftwing than this clown and I think he is full of shit.

    • Chris. K Cook

      Difference is that Israel outlawed those terrorists. In Gaza they are the government.

      “spies Israel sends to America ”

      Everyone spies on everyone. It’s been that way since since the iron age. Deal with it!

  • Y. O.

    I loved #8 – looks like you needed something to complete ten myths…
    Seriously, it also looks like you choose the bits of the bible that suit your cause. You only quoted the promise itself,the Hebrews being sinful, but never any act of repentant. I don’t even I am qualified to debate this, but at least I can read the Hebrew text.

    I was also wondering about your statistics – you claimed 7% of the land was Jewish owned land, but that doesn’t mean 93% of the land was Arab owned land. Hey, what percent was German owned in 1922?

    You seem to be highly motivated and very interested – but all your conclusions, no matter what kind of criticism can be made against them, just don’t give Israel and Israelis much prospective for any future.

    Suppose I agree with you, what than?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      “it also looks like you choose the bits of the bible that suit your cause”

      Precisely my point about what Christian Zionists so ignorantly or dishonestly do.

      “ou claimed 7% of the land was Jewish owned land, but that doesn’t mean 93% of the land was Arab owned land”

      I didn’t say 93% was owned by Arabs. Jews owned 7%. According to UNSCOP, Arabs were in possession of 85%. Arabs owned more land in every single district, including Jaffa.

      “Suppose I agree with you, what than?”

      Then we work together to end U.S.-Israeli rejectionism so that the occupation may end and the two-state solution may be implemented.

      • Y. O.

        But numerous Israeli governments have agreed to 1967 border based solution. They have showed in action that they can and are willing to tare down most settlements and compensate Palestniens for land loss.

        We’re still waiting here to hear Arab and Palestinien leaders say that they recognize a Jewish state and declare an end to the conflict.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          You’re kidding, right? Israel’s policy has always been explicitly rejectionist.

      • Eldarus

        “two-state solution may be implemented” Tell that to Arafat and Abbas who always find the reason to reject it. And regardin “stop occupation”… A. It is not for you to tell if “Judea and Samaria” are occupied lands or not. And if you think by giving lands to Arabs it will stop violence then let me give you and example of GAZA, It is not “occupied” since 2005, after IDF left it it turned into Military Base for Terror, a puppet of Iran.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          Tell that to Arafat and Abbas who always find the reason to reject it.

          Nonsense. The Palestinians have long accepted the two-state solution while Israel rejects it.

          It is not for you to tell if “Judea and Samaria” are occupied lands or not.

          True. It is not a matter of opinion. Under international law, all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is “occupied Palestinian territory”.

          And if you think by giving lands to Arabs…

          It isn’t possible for Israel to “give” Arabs land that is already their own.

          GAZA, It is not “occupied” since 2005

          Israel remained in control of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and territorial waters and implemented an illegal blockade to punish the civilian population. It remains the occupying power under international law.

          • GymMom66

            Clearly, either your grasp on reality is very tenuous, or you have no moral qualms about deliberately spreading lies.

            “Nonsense. The Palestinians have long accepted the two-state solution while Israel rejects it.”

            Really??? Explain to me again how the second intifada started, with Arafat walking away from a deal far more generous than anything the Arabs deserved.

            “Israel remained in control of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and territorial waters and implemented an illegal blockade to punish the civilian population. It remains the occupying power under international law.”

            Israel controls ITS OWN border with Gaza. Egypt controls the other border. Just like America controls its side of the US-Mexico border (or at least we try to). This is normal, throughout the world. Countries control who enters or leaves through their borders.

            The blockade was imposed a couple years after Israel withdrew, not immediately, and it was imposed due to terrorist attacks against Israel. It was deemed entirely legal, even by the grossly Antisemitic UN. That blockade does not prevent food or consumer goods from entering, only weapons. That seems like a pretty reasonable thing, given the history of terrorist attacks from Gaza into Israel.

          • Malus Ultor

            More counterfeit jew lies.
            The dirty jew is adept at lying.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            Really???

            Yes, the Palestinians have really long accepted the two-state solution while Israel rejects it.

            Explain to me again how the second intifada started, with Arafat walking away from a deal far more generous than anything the Arabs deserved.

            How bizaarre to describe Israel’s demands that the Palestinians acquiesce to handing over more of their land to Israel as “generous”.

            Israel controls ITS OWN border with Gaza. Egypt controls the other border.

            Egypt is certainly complicit in Israel’s collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, but, in fact, Israel patrols that border, as well. It’s called the Philadelphia Corridor.

            Again, Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza under international law.

            The blockade was imposed a couple years after Israel withdrew, not immediately…

            False. The blockade policy was merely escalated in 2006 after Hamas won elections. It didn’t begin then.

            …and it was imposed due to terrorist attacks against Israel.

            This is not what the evidence tells us. Quite the contrary, it is evident the purpose from the start was to collectively punish the civilian population for voting the wrong way.

            “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die.” — Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in a meeting of senior officials to discuss what policy Israel should take after Hamas’s election victory in January 2006.

            It was deemed entirely legal, even by the grossly Antisemitic UN.

            False. The authoritative judgment of the UN — along with the ICRC, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Gisha, etc. — is that the blockade is illegal. You are referring to the Palmer report, which was led by two politicians operating who explicitly pointed out that they had no mandate to issue any legal judgments and who stated that their own opinion was non-authoritative, and whose report is rife with factual errors and logical fallacies.

            That blockade does not prevent food or consumer goods from entering, only weapons.

            False. Israel blocks many consumer goods from being importd and/or exported.

          • GymMom66

            “It isn’t possible for Israel to “give” Arabs land that is already their own.”

            That is technically correct, but what a lawyer would call, “non-responsive”. Israel has a perfect legal right to keep the “West Bank” if they choose. That land NEVER legally belonged to any Arab government in the last thousand years.

            If you think Jordan’s conquest gave the Arabs legal right to the land, think again. The language that the Arabs themselves insisted upon states,

            “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate “settlement of the Palestine question”.”

            So they did not claim legal right to the land when they conquered it in the 1948 invasion.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            Israel has a perfect legal right to keep the “West Bank” if they choose.

            Um… No. All of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is under international law occupied Palestine.

            If you think Jordan’s conquest gave the Arabs legal right to the land, think again.

            I do not think that, no. This is not by any means where the Palestinians’ right to their own land came from.

      • GymMom66

        You are either dangerously ignorant, or deliberately promoting falsehoods. It is true that Jews only owned about 7% of the land by 1948. Arabs only owned about 11%. The rest was GOVERNMENT owned land.

        Since the mandatory government, acting under the auspices of the Mandate for Palestine, was obliged to turn that land over tot he JEWISH government, that means that Jews, between private and government ownership, held 89% of the land.

        • Malus Ultor

          Another counterfeit jew sticking their oversized nosed into the discussion and posting falsehoods.

          Why don’t all those counterfeit jews squatting on Palestinian land move home to Mother Russia and the Caucasus bordering Mongolia.

          After all, that is where you thieving, greasy, hooked nosed tramps came from.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          Arabs only owned about 11%. The rest was GOVERNMENT owned land.

          False. The facts are as I’ve stated them. See here for more info on land ownership:

          http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

          Since the mandatory government, acting under the auspices of the Mandate for Palestine, was obliged to turn that land over tot he JEWISH government….

          Nonsense.

          • Helter Skelter

            Lmfao. Your only source us your own site? You sir, are nothing but a piss poor joke.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            If you’d bothered to look, you’d have seen that the essay is well documented. You are welcome to check my sources that I’ve provided to you.

    • alergy

      And Australia was english at some point….so what?

  • Gord Henderson

    SO does anyone have any evidence that there is such a thing as Palestinian suicide bombers, suicide bombings perpetrated by Palestinians. I mean apart from repetition of Israeli claims in the corporate media and alleged unsubstantiated claims of responsibility and intent from individuals and groups. Let’s see some real evidence eg fornsics, thanks

  • Cernan Sixtyeight

    This article is an excellent example of the racist propaganda against the Jews. It tried to perpetuate the myth that the Palestinian Arabs are a bunch of freedom fighters and the Jews are a bunch of land grabbers who stole Tel-Aviv & Jerusalem. It tries to justify the Arab’s genocidal wars against the Jews and the Arab’s 66 year attempt to occupy Israel.

    Just like those in the who accused France of invading & occupying the German city of Paris in 1944 and stealing it from the Nazis, the anti-Semites of today accuse Israel of stealing Israel.

    While Israel holds the best human rights record of any nation in the region, the Arab nations, by contrast, keep the Palestinian in their countries under a state of apartheid. While Israel supports a 2-state solution and has done so since 1937 (Peel Commission), the Arab Leadership had opposed it tooth-and-nail during all those decades.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JBucknoff/status/437026433597448192/photo/1?screen_name=JBucknoff

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    This article is an excellent example of the racist propaganda against the Jews. It tried to perpetuate the myth that the Palestinian Arabs are a bunch of freedom fighters and the Jews are a bunch of land grabbers who stole Tel-Aviv & Jerusalem….

    You aren’t presenting an argument. Your charges of “anti-Semitism” and references to the Nazis is empty and ineffectual rhetoric. You are simply denying that the Palestinians are struggling to exercise their rights in the face of Israeli occupation and oppression. You are simply denying that 750,000 Arabs were ethnically cleansed from Palestine so that the “Jewish state” of Israel could be created. You are simply denying that the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land in Palestine while the majority Arab population owned most of it.

    In short, your comment simply illustrates your own intellectual dishonesty and extraordinary willful ignorance.

  • RevNowWhileWeCan

    Miko Peled is an IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) veteran. His grandfather signed the Israeli Declaration of Independence and his father was a Six Days War General.

    He has lost a young niece in this conflict so I believe his entrenched view on this issue should carry more weight than most. He was well indoctrinated into the Zionist cause and has had to unlearn and then relearn the truth.

    “The truth lays in the personal story, not in the national narrative.” ~Miko Peled

    2 ten minute lectures. Please watch…………


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWRWIksY7M

  • Teresa Rincon

    Let’s say Israel did everything you think they should do. How will that “cure” antisemitism which is increasingly prevalent in Europe, Asia, Latin America, North Africa, etc.? Where can the Jews go should another Hitler arise?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      To whom are you directing your question? And what is the logic behind it? E.g., there would still be anti-Semitism in the world if Israel stopped violating international law; therefore Israel ought to just go on with its criminal policies?

      • Eldarus

        Arabs violate human rights and international laws daily, i do not see Christians or Jews use violence against them in Europe. And your opinion is based by one sided twisted information, people like you are the reason of Anti-Semitism, by spreading lies that Arabs are feeding you with. Because the simple fact is that you support Racism, “Palestinians” not just killing civilians in Israel, but declared openly, there won’t be any any single Jew living inside their border, while all the settlements and houses Israel built, they share with Arabs. The fact is that 1.6 Million Arabs living inside Israel with equal rights.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          You are welcome to point out any error in fact or logic on my part. I’ll merely observe that despite your accusations, you haven’t done so.

          Jews living in illegally constructed settlements should, of course, be welcome to remain if they would prefer to live in Palestine than Israel.

          There is, of course, institutional discrimination against Arab Israelis.

          • bengg

            your claims have no basis in reality. Israeli Arabs have all the rights jews and people of other faiths in Israel have. how can you lie like this knowingly? don’t you have any honest integrity? professional ethics?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            I repeat: There is institutionalized discrimination against Arab Israelis.

            “In the previous Knesset, we saw many anti-Arab legislative initiatives, some of which received broad support and, unfortunately, led to new discriminatory laws.” — http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.550152

            “Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory” — The Or Commission, http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/6677

            “New Israeli laws will increase discrimination against Arabs, critics say: One legalizes ‘admissions committees’ in towns to vet would-be residents on their social ‘suitability.’ The other imposes fines for commemorating Nakba Day, seen as a protest of Israel’s independence.” — http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/world/la-fg-israel-arab-laws-20110324

          • glennk

            What do u think the US Gov’t would do if suddenly all across the 13 Ex-Confederate states we faced huge mass demos. protesting the Rebel defeat in 1865 and calling for the end of Union again ? No Nat’l state is going to allow those within it to openly advocate its violent demise. That’s called treason look it up dipshit!

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            It’s called racism. Look it up.

          • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

            Today, Jews follow a number of different customs in remembrance of their fallen Temple. When Jews pray, they pray toward Jerusalem. Within the daily liturgy, there are numerous calls for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. During the week, after meals, Jews recite a grace,
            which includes the recitation of Psalm 137 (“If I forget thee, O
            Jerusalem…”).[5] At the end of a wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass,
            which signifies the Jewish people’s continued mourning over the Temple’s
            destruction. In addition, many have the custom of leaving a wall in their home
            unfinished in remembrance of the destruction. All of these customs play a
            significant part in the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated “represents the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple.”[6] In addition to the customs and ideology, the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem is internationally recognized.[7]

            ISLAMIC LITERATURE AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT
            Classic Islamic literature also recognizes the existence of a Jewish Temple and its importance to Judaism.
            This makes Palestinian Temple Denial all the more puzzling.

            In Sura 17:1 of the Koran, the “Farthest Mosque” is called the al-masjid al-Aqsa. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn,[8] a well-respected Sunni exegesis of the Koran from the 15th and 16th centuries, notes that the “Farthest Mosque” is a reference to the Bayt al-Maqdis of Jerusalem.[9] In Hebrew, the Jewish Temple is often referred to as the Beyt Ha-Miqdash, nearly identical to the Arabic term. In the commentary of Abdullah Ibn Omar al-Baydawi, who authored several prominent theological works in the 13th century, the masjid is referred to as the Bayt al-Maqdis because during Muhammad’s time no mosque existed in Jerusalem.[10] Koranic historian and commentator, Abu Jafar Muhammad al-Tabari, who chronicled the seventh century Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, wrote that one day when Umar finished praying, he went to the place where “the Romans buried the Temple [bayt al-maqdis] at the time of the sons of Israel.”[11] In addition, eleventh century historian Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-Maqdisi and fourteenth century Iranian religious scholar Hamdallah al-Mustawfi acknowledged that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built on top of Solomon’s Temple.[12]

            This is a small sample of the Islamic literature attesting to the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Innumerable other writings from other faiths attest to this fact, as well.

            Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount

            http://www.templeinstitute.org/1925-wakf-temple-mount-guide.pdf

            Over a million Jewish people and their children were expelled from Arab countries and their assets confiscated including 120,440 sq. km of land.
            It is interesting to note, that Jordan is a country that never existed in history before WWI and nobody is contesting its legitimacy or territorial sovereignty and control.
            The same powers that established 21 Arab States plus Jordan after WWI, established the State of Israel based on the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Treaty of 1920 which was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres..

            On the other hand, Israel and its Jewish people have over 4,000 years of
            history.

            Many nations and people are questioning Israel’s control of its liberated territory. No one is mentioning that the Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate, over 650,00 Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people 120,400 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.

            Transfer the Arab-Palestinians to the Jewish owned land in Arab countries is a good solution.

            Let the 21 Arab countries resettle the Arab Palestinians in the land they confiscated from the Jews which is 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km.). Provide them with funds they confiscated from the million Jewish people they expelled and let them build an economy, This will benefit both the Arab-Palestinians and the hosting countries, The other alternative is relocate the Arab-Palestinians to Jordan, (originally land allocated for the Jewish people) which is already 80% Arab-Palestinians, and give them funds to relocate and build an economy. This will solve the Arab-Palestinians refugee problem once and for all. It will also reduce hostility and strife in the region.

          • Liadan

            Christians and Muslims do not have equal rights in Israel. Heck, Non-White Jews don’t have equal rights with the European Jews in Israel. Israel is built on the basis of institutionalized racism.

          • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

            As Professor Stephen
            Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s
            International Court of Justice notes:

            The Palestinian claim to sovereignty over east Jerusalem under the principle of self-determination of peoples cannot supersede the Jewish right to self-determination in Jerusalem. While Arabs constituted an ethnic majority only in
            the artificial entity of “East Jerusalem” created by Jordan’s illegal division of the city, the armistice lines forming this artificial entity were never intended to determine the borders of, or political sovereignty over, the city. Moreover, Jews constituted the majority ethnic group in unified Jerusalem both in the century before Jordan’s invasion, and since 1967 (the exception being during Jordan’s illegal occupation).

            Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, an international legal expert, scholar and director emeritus of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, details the legal justification for Israel’s sovereignty in east Jerusalem. According to the scholar, “Jordan’s occupation of
            the Old City–and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river
            entirely lacked legal justification” and was simply a “de facto occupation
            protected by the Armistice Agreement.” This occupation ended as a result of
            “legitimate measures” of self defense by Israel, thereby opening the way for Israel as “a lawful occupant” to fill a sovereignty vacuum left by Britain’s withdrawal from the territory in 1948.

            furthermore:

            A state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense……Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

            As Schwebel explains, “Jordan’s seizure [in 1948] and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem were unlawful,” arising as they did from an aggressive act. Jordan therefore had no valid title to east Jerusalem. When Jordanian forces attacked Jerusalem in 1967, Israeli forces, acting in self defense, repelled Jordanian forces from territory Jordan was illegitimately occupying. Schwebel maintains that in comparison to Jordan, “Israeli title in old (east) Jerusalem is superior.” And in comparison to the UN, which never asserted sovereignty over Jerusalem and allowed its recommendation of a corpus separatum to lapse and die, he sees Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as similarly superior.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            Indeed, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination cannot supersede the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. The converse is equally true.

            How remarkable, to cite the UN in support of the argument that all of Jerusalem is legally Israeli territory. How remarkable, given the fact that the UN has consistently and repeatedly condemned Israel’s annexation measures as illegal, null and void under international law. This is completely uncontroversial, a universal consensus accepted by every country on the planet apart from Israel itself.

        • Liadan

          Palestinians within Israel and supposedly have full ciizenship, do not have full and equal rights with Israeli Jews. That is why Israel is called an apartheid state.

    • JustSaying

      I always thought Bavaria should have been annexed as “Israel.” Yes, I am joking but not entirely unseriously :-)

      • Larry Armstrong

        Actually, you’re not alone in thinking that.

    • alergy

      Maybe people would stop being “antisemitic” if the jews will start behaving in a more human way. Anyway, I dont think there is so much antisemitism as you say.
      I suggest the US, since the seem to be so in favour of the zionists, could offer some of their territory (plenty of space no?)

      • Globalpuppy

        I’m not a Zionist and question the Israeli state. Your ignorance about antisemitism and your racial clumping of the Israeli state with not only all Israeli people but all Jews is probably, ironically, the best argument for a “Jewish state” that I have ever heard. Thanks for the reminder of how pervasive antisemitism really is.

      • Crappy Khan

        I agree with you.

        Antisemitism has nothing to do with criticizing Israel’s oppression in Palestine, except the fact that such a psychopathic attitude had been demonstrated only by the most hated dictators in the history.

        I am a Muslim and I don’t care if you are a Jew or Muslim or Christian. The only thing that matters is whether you are an asshole or not. Until the Jews from Israel and other countries start treating other human beings in this way, the antisemitic sentiment will probably not go away. This can be compared a with the present anti-Muslim sentiment in the west, which won’t go away until the Muslims start behaving like humans.

      • glennk

        “Maybe people would stop being “antisemitic” if the jews will start behaving in a more human way” Classic example of an antisemitic statement. Jews aren’t even human to these creeps.

  • Pedro Jaime Moldovar

    Dirty, dirty jews.

  • Donkey

    The bible was written by man, many hundreds of years after the so called events occurred, it is not a text to be trusted as fact (It is not a primary source, and therefore dubious, plus it has been rewritten too many times for it to be true to the original translation). Man wants power and land and will use religion to obtain whatever they want. All peoples no matter what faith have the right to live together peacefully, No one religion or peoples has anymore claim to a land mass than any other, we are all inhabitants of this wonderful planet and should learn to live tolerantly upon it!

    • streetfleet2000

      Lack of knowledge.

  • Alec Grossman

    It’s sad that this article makes no mention of the fact, not myth, that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis in Europe during World War II and that if the state of Israel had not been partitioned in 1947, the remaining Jews in Europe would have had nowhere to go and would likely have suffered the same fate.

    • Pedro Jaime Moldovar

      AND THAT IS WHERE HUMANITY MADE THE MISTAKE.

      • Alec Grossman

        Wow, you are a horrible person.

        • Pedro Jaime Moldovar

          When will the world be rid of the jewish burden? That is the question.

          • Trym Stein Hagen

            When will the world be rid of the muslim burden? That’s one just as stupid question as yours, shame on you.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            Hear, hear!

          • Mark K.

            Please tell me you are not saying “hear hear” to the person who just said humanity made a mistake by not exterminating the Jews, because if so, my enthusiasm for you and this piece just evaporated.

          • Moldovar

            Pipe down Edomite.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      It’s sad that you did not read the article. If you had, you would know that Palestine was not partitioned in 1947.

      • Alec Grossman

        Sorry, I meant the state of Israel was partitioned in 1948, my mistake. Also, I said nothing about forcing Palestinians to suffer, I was just trying to point out that you made no mention of the reason why the state of Israel was a necessity in the first place, that there was nowhere else for the European Jews to go after World War II. And you make no mention of the rampant anti-semitism that was endemic to much of the world prior to, during, and immediately following World War II and which seems to be making a comeback, as shown by comments like those of our friend Pedro Jaime Moldovar here.

        • Martin Krauser

          Since you do not refute any points made in the article, a reader can only assume that your argument is the following: Israel was necessary and therefore was and to this day is entitled to breaking international law, because many Jews suffered greatly in the past and may possibly suffer again in the future.

          Do the former fact and latter speculation somehow provide legal or ethical grounds for historical and ongoing land theft, wars of aggression, apartheid and collective punishment? Do they change any of the facts stated by the article? I don’t think so, and therefore see no reason the Shoah should be brought up. Do the facts cease to be facts on the face of WW II or the many earlier pogroms? Or is it the fear of some indeterminate future disaster that does the trick?

          • Alec Grossman

            I just thought the article was very one-sided and anti-Semitic, so I wanted to say something to that affect.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            Ah, the old standby charge that criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic”, which its apologists throw around in lieu of arguments.

          • Alec Grossman

            Alright genius, if you’re so smart, maybe you have a solution to the conflict that you could suggest that would not require the annihilation or displacement of the millions of Jews currently living in the area.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            The solution is well known and has the favor of an international consensus, accepted by the Palestinians but rejected by the US and Israel.

          • Alec Grossman

            Well, what is it?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            You already know.

          • Martin Krauser

            Of course the article is one-sided. It is a response of a single professional to persistent errors in the rhetoric surrounding Palestine in the media. But if you can’t present solid facts or reasoning to counter the statements made without taking the debate to another place altogether, then perhaps it is time to take a step back and acknowledge the author’s work, challenging as it may be.

            But how in the blimey is it antisemitic? It goes to great lengths to establish that Jews and Muslims in the region lived as peaceful or friendly neighbours for centuries. This piece does not even come close to using ethnicity as something to attack Israel with, nor does it blame every Jew in the world for Israel. I have some experience with discrimination of my own and am genuinely interested in why you felt it as anti-semitic. When you think about it, which claims in the article or what use of language makes you say that?

          • XtreeemMetalman

            “Nor does it blame every Jew in the world for Israel” Yes it does. It says Jews instead of Israelis in one point.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          You say “Israel was partitioned in 1948″. If you mean Palestine was partitioned in 1948, no, it was not.

          Of course you said nothing about the suffering of the Palestinians, but are you not attempting to justify the means by which Israel was established (namely, the unilateral declaration of its existence by the Zionists and ethnic cleansing of Palestine)?

          • Alec Grossman

            I do not believe that the Palestinians should be forced to suffer. I neither wrote nor implied that. I also disagree with your assertion that the declaration of the existence of Israel by Zionists was what created the state of Israel or that Zionists are interested in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. If that were the case, with the military force that Israel possesses, there would be no Palestinians.

            Also, several of what you call myths in your article are not at all myths, they are opinions. Opinions are different than myths. For example, your myth #4, that Israel has a “right to exist.” Not a myth, an opinion. You may disagree with this opinion, but that does not make it a myth. I also don’t understand why you put “right to exist” in quotation marks. You make no mention of who you are quoting. Or are you using the quotation marks for their other purpose, to be sarcastic? Like someone sarcastically said that Israel has a right to exist.

            Then there is your myth #1, that Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict. This is just inane to mention, since Judaism is a religion and Arabs are an ethnicity. There are even Arab Jews, so of course they were not always in conflict. If you meant that there has not always been conflict between Jews and Muslims, well, of course not. Judaism is more than 1500 years older than Islam, so they could not possibly have always been in conflict.

            Myth #3, you keep mentioning Arabs, as if all Arabs are Muslim, or all Arabs are Palestinian. Neither of which is true. There are 22 Arab nations in the Middle East and North Africa, but there are Muslims throughout the world, including Southeast Asia, Europe, and North America. There are also Jews throughout the world, but only one Jewish nation, which for some reason, seems so threatening to people like you.

            And speaking of threatening, your myth #5, that the Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973. What else would you call amassing troops along the border, other than a threat? Were they massing their troops for a tea party? Were they gathering for a basketball tournament? No, they were threatening Israel’s existence. I guess Israel should have just waited around to be invaded instead of preemptively striking. Then there would be no Israel or Palestine, because as has been shown by the surrounding Arab nations’ attitude’s towards Palestinians, they don’t really care about them either.

            Myth #6, about the withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula, you make no mention of the fact that Israel’s eventual withdrawal secured lasting peace between Israel and Egypt which continues to this day. Myth #7, again, an opinion, not a myth. Myth #8, also an opinion based on an interpretation of ancient Hebrew text which can be translated in many different ways and has been commented on ad infinitum. Just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t make it a myth.

            Myth #9, Palestinians reject a two-state solution. Would you like some examples? Here are a few examples specifically of Palestinians rejecting the two-state solution: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4534910,00.html, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.601938, http://www.thetower.org/0593-poll-more-than-70-percent-of-palestinians-reject-two-state-solution/. Then you mentions as part of this myth that Palestinians want to destroy Israel, as being a myth. Well, here are several examples of Palestinians calling for the destruction of Israel: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=485, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWxQS81gXeI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_K2_0elIqs.

            So, what you are calling myths are nothing more than opinions that you disagree with. I guess calling your article “10 opinions that I disagree with” wouldn’t be as provocative, but that seems to be the only intent of your article: to provoke. And I guess it worked, because here I am responding to your provocations. Why not try to be more productive than just provocative. It might be a little more useful and less divisive. But I guess that doesn’t get page views, huh?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            If you do not believe the Palestinians should have been made to suffer, why are you playing the apologist for the means by which the state of Israel came into being?

            Israel was established by unilateral declaration by the Zionists along with the ethnic cleansing of Palestin of the majority of its Arab inhabitants. These are matters of fact, not opinion, so there is no “disagreeing” with them, only choosing to be ignorant.

            On #4: It is not an “opinion” that no state has a “right to exist”. If you read and take the time to understand #4, you’ll see that. Logic truisms are not opinions. (“Right to exist” is in quotation marks obviously because there is no such “right”).

            On #1: Your criticism lacks any substance. Congratulations on knowing that “Jew” refers both to people who practice Judaism and to an ethnic group.

            On #3: Your remarks again lack any substance. I do not use “Arab” synonymously with “Muslim” in the article. Nor, of course, so I suggest all Arabs are Palestinian. You are being silly.

            On #5: Again, in 1967, Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Nasser had no interest in bloodshed. That view was shared by the US’s intelligence community, which noted that Egypt’s military in the Sinai had taken up “defensive” positions. In 1973, again, as I’ve already informed you, Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli forces who were occupying Egyptian and Syrian soil.

            On #6: You are right, I do not mention the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. So what? This is irrelevant to my point and doesn’t change the fact that it is a Zionist lie that UNSC 242 calls only for a partial withdrawal from the occupied territories.

            On #7: Whether Israel’s use of military force is legitimate self-defense or not is a question of fact, not opinion. Israel’s war crimes, for example, are demonstrable.

            On #8: With regard to the Biblical passages I cited, there is no “interpretation” involved. The meaning is perfectly plain. It must take a real effort to read the Bible and not pick up on how the Hebrews continuously violated the covenant with Yahweh. This is a central theme of the book, after all.

            On #9: There are Palestinians who reject a two-state solution, certainly. Nevertheless, like I said, the Palestinian leadership has long accepted the two-state solution. Furthermore, Hamas has long said it would accept a long-term truce with the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the pre-June ’67 lines.

          • Kaya

            I fully believe in a free Palestinian state, and feel that Israel’s attacks are completely inhumane, but I’m disturbed at how this article barely acknowledges the extent to which white Christian Europeans (WCE) are at fault for this situation—something to which I believe Alec was initially alluding. The crimes of WCE should not be an excuse for Israel or any other nation, but should still be discussed to provide historical context. This conflict doesn’t exist in a vacuum. WCE imposed their imperialist will throughout the Middle East, and subjected its peoples to all sorts of cruelties. Meanwhile, other WCE were terrorising Jews (treating them not totally unlike the Israelis are treating the Palestinians today) at first destroying their homes and chasing them out of villages, and later with the holocaust. Like or not, these pasts matter, because they provide cultural and psychological insight, which we must understand in order to find a solution that will be beneficial for all of the peoples in the Middle East. For example, the fact that a man was abused as a child does not excuse him for beating his wife, but maybe if he can confront that past with the help of a therapist, he could learn to change his behaviour in the future.

  • Haidar

    For more than a thousand years my family lived in al Zeeb now named in its roman name Achzeeb.
    In 1947 my family doctor was a Jew from Nahariyya who enjoyed visiting us frequently as he filled his car with free fish,citrus fruits and apricots etc.
    The architect who designed our house was a Jew who made for me my first stone shot from a carved wood piece and good rubber.
    We lived in friendship and happiness with our Jewish neighbors in Nahariyya
    Yet 1948 and the English mandate comes to an end Nahariyya hagana

  • Bernie

    Wow, how misinformed can a journalist be??? A response would take hours and pages. I suggest anyone interested in a more balanced view, look elsewhere.

    (Israel was not threatened in ’67? are you joking?)

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    I challenge you to point to even a single error in either fact or logic in the article. Best of luck to you.

    • Trym Stein Hagen

      It’s impossible to challenge you on “logic” since your logic is something else than anyone elses’ entirely. The fact that you don’t know that makes you seem childish and unprofessional. When it comes to facts; you’ve not produced a single reference/source for you claims….

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

        I’ll simply observe that you’ve conceded you find it “impossible” to find any error in my logic (and, logically, if my logic was in error, it would not be “impossible” to point this out) and likewise have thus far declined to even attempt to point to any error in fact on my part.

        • Trym Stein Hagen

          I’m not paid to discuss here unlike you, and I do not care enough about this conflict to spend hours on bringing up sources, but I know I’ve seen some in the past on two of these myths.
          No sources in this comment by me means that it is as useless and worthless as your whole article, and definitely not worth the read… have a nice day.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            I’m being paid to post comments? Well, that is certainly news to me. Who is paying me, pray tell? I’d sure love to know, because it seems the check is getting lost in the mail.

            It is highly instructive that you dismiss my article as “worthless” even while acknowledging that you are unable to point to even a single error in fact or logic in it.

  • bourghoul

    the fact that the article uses “arabs” to identify palestinians as a people denies the very existence of the palestinian people. The author justly identifies jewish palestinians and then goes on to define all other palestinians as arabs ( is it a shortcut to ” christian and muslim palestinians”?).

    They adopted the arabic language ( like most jewish palestinians I might add) and are not “arabs” ( as if arab is an ethnicity…). Defining palestinians as “arabs” is another way of annihilating their identity. The French and English colonizers used it for the exact same purpose. To justify land grabbing and extermination of the “indigenous” people.

    you know the ever so: ” they are not really indigenous since they are arabs and arabs come from saudi arabia or the arabian peninsula so they can’t really lay claim to the land they live on since they are not from there “originally”…. ” and so on and so forth.

    i am sorry but it defeats the whole purpose. sad.

    PS: i also recognize that the Pan-Arab movement did not help clarify matters but then again we all make mistakes.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      I fail to see how identifying Arab Palestinians as Arab Palestinians “denies the very existence of the palestinian people”.

      This is plain silliness.

      • bourghoul

        well you don’t identify them as arab palestinians do you? if you fail to see what i am trying to say then all good. anyhow. enjoy the silliness

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          Yes, I identify Arab Palestinians as Arab Palestinians, silly.

    • XtreeemMetalman

      Palestinians Jordanians and Syrians are the same nation, divided by France and England.

  • Bahi La Pointe

    Excellent analysis Jeremy, can I ask where I can find references so I can check them?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      You’ll have to be specific. Generally speaking, I’d refer you to The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination:

      http://www.amazon.com/Rejection-Palestinian-Self-Determination-Jeremy-Hammond-ebook/dp/B0059JFL38

      • Trym Stein Hagen

        It’s fiction in other words. No sources, only self-made opinions without facts.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          No, “You’ll have to be specific” about what information you are requesting a source for does not mean “It’s fiction”. It means “You’ll have to be specific.”

    • XtreeemMetalman

      Lol are you an Arab or a Nazi?

  • mattmainen

    The author, unfortunately, is wrong.

    “Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.”

    From the 600s until the present day, there has been a perpetual state
    of conflict between Jews and Muslims in the region. Just because the
    Jews were subdued relatively quickly over the course of several decades
    in the 600s, it does not follow that conflict did not exist.

    That
    would be like saying that there was no conflict between slaves and
    their white owners in the USA. Even in the absence of violence (because
    one side has given up), subjugation is a form of conflict. Conflict was
    not isolated to Jewish-Islamic relations, but also between the Jews and
    other Arab people such as the Druze (see below).

    He
    notes that: “After major violence again erupted in 1929, the British
    Shaw Commission report noted that “In less than 10 years three serious
    attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first
    of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar
    incidents.”” and “at Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in
    Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors.”

    I
    cannot comment about that specific window, but throughout the larger
    history there were similar if not greater outbreaks of violence between
    Jews and non-Jews. In Safed alone, there were massacres of Jews at the
    hands of Druze in 1660, 1834 and likely in 1838. Were all Arabs and all
    Jews at war in the region? Of course not. Some Muslim Arabs helped out
    the Jews in these attacks. This, however, does not erase the underlying
    atmosphere of conflict which perpetually exploded into acts of full
    scale violence.

    The
    above should not be taken as an endorsement of unprovoked violence –
    there should never be any from Jews or Arabs – but it should be seen as
    an accurate and fact-based historical account that the author completely
    ignored.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      No, there was not “a perpetual state” of conflict between Jewish and Arab Palestinians prior to the onset of the Zionist movement.

      • mattmainen

        Your assertion is that one myth is: “Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.”

        I take it that you wish to restrict the term “region” to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Fine.

        This region, however, cannot be isolated from the greater region. The experience of Jews in the greater region was largely one of subjugation, which I assert is certainly a form of conflict and that perpetual subjugation is tantamount to perpetual conflict.

        If you have evidence from a credible source demonstrating that the experience of Jews within these borders differed significantly from the well-documented experiences of Jews throughout the region, then I would be much appreciative if you could provide those.

        We should be reminded that upon conquering Jerusalem, Umar applied the laws of subjugation to the Jews (as well as Christians). Thus, the relationship between the local Jews and Arabs can be considered born in the spirit of subjugative conflict.

        This is not to deny that perhaps despite this subjugation, Jews and Arabs had “pleasant relationships” – but such relationships should be understood in the context of the relationship between an oppressive and oppressed population. I’m sure Thomas Jefferson had great relationships with his slaves.

        Of course, all of this is to say nothing of the historical evidence I provided you regarding the city of Sefad alone.

        You have made the claim that it is a myth that Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region. Your argument, of course, demands that 1) the term region be isolated to borders that have existed for less than a century and 2) within those borders, the relationship between Jews and Arabs was atypical for the region. Please provide some sources for this later point.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          It is obvious in the context that I am referring specifically to the region known then as Palestine when I say it is a myth that Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict.

          I discuss this more fully with references in The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination.

          • mattmainen

            The description itself foreshadows your brushing over oh, I don’t know, 1300 years of history.

            “the seeds of the continuing conflict in the Middle East between Jews and Arabs were sown during [the rise of the Zionist movement].”

            Had you taken the time to do the relevant historical research, you would have seen that the seeds were sown at the time of the advent of Islam. Mohammad and the Jews were in a persistent state of war and following their being subdued, the Jews remained in a state of subjugation throughout the region until the Jewish State emerged.

            Saying that the beginning of the Zionist movement sowed the seeds of the conflict is like saying the freeing of the slaves sowed the seeds of the conflict between blacks and whites. It’s absurd.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            Again, Arab and Jewish Palestinians generally got along as neighbors prior to the Zionist movement. As the Shaw Commission noted after the 1929 violence that there had been 3 such outbreaks in the last ten years, but none in the 80 years before that. Prior to WWI, “the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which today is almost unknown in Palestine.”

          • mattmainen

            1) Is subjugation a form of conflict?
            2) Were Jews subjugated in the region prior to the start of the Zionist movement?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            No, Jewish Palestinians were not subjugated by Arab Palestinians prior to the start of the Zionist movement.

          • mattmainen

            Are you saying that Jews (and for that matter Christians) were not dhimmis? Did this apply to all three Ottoman districts covering the territory or only some? Can you please detail when and how the Jews were granted equal rights (for example they no longer paid Jizya) and the relevant laws related to dhimmi status instituted by Umar were revoked?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            I am saying precisely what I said, that the Jewish Palestinians were not subjugated by the Arab Palestinians. You seem to be confusing the latter with the Turks.

  • mattmainen

    The author, unfortunately, is wrong.

    “Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.”

    From the 600s until the present day, there has been a perpetual state
    of conflict between Jews and Muslims in the region. Just because the
    Jews were subdued relatively quickly over the course of several decades
    in the 600s, it does not follow that conflict did not exist.

    That
    would be like saying that there was no conflict between slaves and
    their white owners in the USA. Even in the absence of violence (because
    one side has given up), subjugation is a form of conflict. Conflict was
    not isolated to Jewish-Islamic relations, but also between the Jews and
    other Arab people such as the Druze (see below).

    He
    notes that: “After major violence again erupted in 1929, the British
    Shaw Commission report noted that “In less than 10 years three serious
    attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first
    of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar
    incidents.”” and “at Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in
    Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors.”

    I
    cannot comment about that specific window, but throughout the larger
    history there were similar if not greater outbreaks of violence between
    Jews and non-Jews. In Safed alone, there were massacres of Jews at the
    hands of Druze in 1660, 1834 and likely in 1838. Were all Arabs and all
    Jews at war in the region? Of course not. Some Muslim Arabs helped out
    the Jews in these attacks. This, however, does not erase the underlying
    atmosphere of conflict which perpetually exploded into acts of full
    scale violence.

    The
    above should not be taken as an endorsement of unprovoked violence –
    there should never be any from Jews or Arabs – but it should be seen as
    an accurate and fact-based historical account that the author completely
    ignored.

  • Saad Merhi

    Myth # 11: the army that can’t be defeated

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    I guess you would prefer I had written, “Your comment is devoid of substance”. Same meaning.

    It is like a finger pointing to the moon. Do not focus on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory.

    • Sura

      Please let me decide as to which is the moon and which is the finger. Your position on the whole thing is so dogmatic and defensive, it reminds me of the right wing politicians of my country. And all of them are hypocrites, of course!

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    You can see who I was replying to (“Trym Stein Hagen”) if you look again.

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    Your remark “Please let me decide as to which is the moon and which is the finger” makes no sense. I conclude that, at least in this context, you do not understand the meaning of that Taoist saying.

    Likewise, your comment that my “position” is “dogmatic and defensive” makes no sense. I conclude that you are unable to point to any error in fact or logic on my part and thus resort to ad hominem argumentation.

    • Sura

      You make no sense… Bla bla bla… Bla bla bla… That is the only way you have learnt to communicate? Now I understand why your so-called ‘ten myths’ makes no sense.

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

        I see you also remain incapable of pointing out any error in fact or logic in the article.

        • Helter Skelter

          The errors have been laid our for you, kid. You reject all the facts because they don’t support your terroristic worldview. I know you Muslims are well versed in taqiyya, but you’re still failing.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            I see you, too, Helter Skelter, have not pointed out even a single error in fact or logic in the article.

  • Reader

    Outstanding Article Mr. Hammond, except myth #8, where you mentioned the existence of ” christian Zionists ” and their beliefs, which make no sense since Zionism is a political movement and currant established by jews since ” Hertzel” that aims to create a state for jews around the world. Which means, Christian cannot be Zionist( you can call them maybe pro-israel camp etc..) !!!

    Otherwise, Congrats and keep it up .

  • Dez E.

    I find myself having to qualify a lot of my statements by saying that when I say Israel, I am talking about the government and its supporters. Much like when I criticize my own government, I am not criticizing myself. It should be stated that there are a lot of Jews, not just in Israel who find the actions of the Israeli government appalling.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Important points.

  • http://legitimatebusiness.com/ R D

    This article is so filled with inaccuracies and bias that I hardly know where to start.
    But there is actually a pretty good historical account at wikipedia.

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    Wikipedia?

    I challenge you to point out even a single error in fact or logic in the article, or to otherwise make a modicum of effort to substantiate your assertion it is “filled with innaccuracies and bias”.

    You can start at the beginning (or wherever else you like; anywhere will do).

  • Moldovar

    The Edomites /Ashkenazi’s are on the back foot it seems. The world is awakening to your lies, thievery and deceit.

    This will not end well for the wandering gypsy tribe.

    #BDS
    #APARTHEIDISRAEL

    • XtreeemMetalman

      Lol Edomites are Semites dumb-cunt. And if they’re wandering, by being “Anti-Zionist” you’re the one who is saying he wants it to be facilitated. You live on stolen Indian land dude lol

  • Choicevoice

    .
    It’s always a drag to take the trouble of setting up an account on a strange site, simply because one needs to add an opinion, and it took a good fifteen minutes to jump through all of the hoops. I was led here from youtube.com/watch?v=zmCKZYKsiGM, where this page was provided as evidence, to which a user named “Smiley” responded, “You call that facts?” and then proceeded to discredit the author. (“The guy who wrote this bullshit is not a Historian, is not a someone who actually educated about anything, he describe himself as a ‘independent political analyst’… he makes up his own ‘facts’ and so are you.”)

    Ahhh, the mighty Internet, which has made it possible for any ding-a-ling to sit back in his or her easy armchair, and irresponsibly spew forth, in the safety of anonymity.

    In this day and age, when the facts have become whatever one wishes them to mean (the world was never an honest place, but unfortunately – unlike the finite space in Gaza – there is always room for greater dishonesty), to prepare such an article as this in itself is a feat of courage. It is a topic that churns the emotions; even some of the intelligent detractors here (a good number certainly more cerebrally-advantaged than “Smiley”), forget the rules for truth and fairness, in the interest of satisfying what they fervently choose to believe.

    Time and again, I see Mr. Hammond inviting his critics here to “point to even a single error in either fact or logic in the article.” One or two have done so without eliciting a response (Well, maybe just one… that would be “One,” in his four-year-old comment contending Hamas rockets were indeed fired during the mentioned period, the accuracy for which I can’t speak for without research), but even if a tree is found to be shaky, that does not take away from the value of the forest. (Perhaps I should have instead gone for the finger-moon analogy.) Usually, folks respond by sniffing they don’t have the time, go for the ad hominem, or attempt to sidestep the topic by going down not directly related avenues, such as suicide bombers.

    Now imagine dealing with a whole crowd of dogmatic Pharisees who are blind to reason, so overcome by devotion to their cause. A draining effort, to be sure. So here’s the primary point I wished to make: aside from the article’s substance, I was just as impressed with the author’s dedication to counter the ones who care little for backing up their claims with objective facts. (I also like that he met almost every counter-claim head on; unanswered claims endanger a flimsy argument of gettng bolstered.) Still at work, four years later, giving the baseless ones a run for their money. Such committed non-neglect calls for a separate salute.

    .

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      Sorry signing up was a hassle. I was under the impression Disqus was a convenient system for users.

      You mention one possible item, but I don’t recall anyone ever pointing out any errors in the article.

      Thank you very much for taking the time to comment and the salute. I appreciate it.

  • policywriter

    What a disgusting article, which, apparently, attracts a lot of antisemitic bluebottles…

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    Yes, it is disgusting how the article shreds numerous myths about the conflict. The truth is just gross.

  • Peter Smith

    I agree _completely_ with ‘myth’ #2. The UN did _not_, in fact, create Israel.

    I mean, they _did_, of course, create Israel, but that would be…factual.

    So we’ll just say that the UN did _not_ create Israel.

    Israel was created by….God. Or Magic. Or a freak thunder storm. It just appeared, dude, get over it.

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    No it is not “factual” that the UN created Israel. That is false.

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

    The establishment of the state of Israel was announced unilaterally by the Zionist leadership on land in which the Arabs were a majority and owned most of the land, while the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land in Palestine. The “Jewish state” was made de facto by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Arabs from Palestine.

  • Eldarus

    The fact is on Judea that was renamed to “Palestine” by Romans, was never belong to any “Palestinians”… It was owned by Otoman Empire and later by British. There was never another country but Israel. Stop trying to justify so called minority, because if you look into their roots, they are same Arabs like in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and you will realize they are not minority at all.. They are just a tool in their “brother’s” hands in order to fight the “West influence”, yes because Israel represent more of West culture rather than Asian.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      The linguistic origin of the word “Palestine” is completely irrelevant to the question of ownership of the land in Palestine.

      At the time of the Zionist’s unilateral declaration of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land in Palestine. The majority Arab community owned most of the land.

      Of course, the statement “There was never another country but Israel” is also nonsense.

      • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

        Ottoman land ownership law – It is time to learn the facts
        about Judea and Samaria

        To truly understand the status of this territory we have to
        first differentiate between the personal and the national. The recent furor
        surrounding the government’s decision to declare nearly 1,000 acres at Gvaot in
        Gush Etzion “State Land”
        is a classic example of the ignorance of history and law that governs most
        discussions of Israeli actions beyond the internationally hallowed “Green
        Line.” Media headlines around the world screamed about “annexation” and “land
        grab,” the Palestinian Authority declared it a “crime” and foreign ministries
        around the world have demanded the reversal of the decision. However, few
        articles, press releases or communiqués mention the crux of the matter; the
        legal and historical status of the land in question.

        For many, if not most, around the world, every inch of land
        beyond the 1949 armistice lines is automatically Palestinian; a display of
        unfamiliarity with history and international law.

        To truly understand the status of this territory we have to
        first differentiate between the personal and the national.

        Of course there is land privately owned by Palestinians in Judea
        and Samaria, what many call the “West
        Bank” in seeming deference to the Jordanian occupation, which
        invented the term as juxtaposition to its eastern bank. These areas, like
        privately owned territory anywhere in the world, cannot be touched unless there
        is very pressing reason for a government or sovereign power to do so. These areas,
        according to Ottoman and British records, constitute no more than a few percent
        of the total area, meaning the vast majority is not privately owned.

        However, to contend that these territories are “Palestinian”
        on a national level is problematic. To claim an area belongs to a particular
        nation requires the territory to have belonged to that people, where they held
        some sort of sovereignty that was broadly recognized.

        All of these criteria have been met historically by the
        Jewish people, and none by the Palestinians.

        In fact, the Jewish people were provided with national
        rights in these territories not just by dint of history and past sovereignty,
        but also by residual legal rights contained in the League of Nations Mandate,
        which were never canceled and are preserved by the UN Charter, under Article 80
        – the famous “Palestine Clause,” that was drafted, in part, to guarantee
        continuity with respect to Jewish rights from the League of Nations.

        For the past almost 2,000 years, since the destruction of
        Jewish sovereignty and expulsion of most of its indigenous people, it remained
        an occupied and colonized outpost in the territory of many global and regional
        empires.

        The Ottomans were the most recent to officially apportion
        the territory, in what they referred to as Ottoman Syria, which today
        incorporates modern-day Israel, Syria, Jordan and stretching into Iraq. Before
        The Ottoman Land Code of 1858, land had largely been owned or passed on by word
        of mouth, custom or tradition. Under the Ottomans of the 19th century, land was
        apportioned into three main categories: Mulk, Miri and Mawat.

        Mulk was the only territory that was privately owned in the
        common sense of the term, and as stated before, was only a minimal part of the
        whole territory, much of it owned by Jews, who were given the right to own land
        under reforms.

        Miri was land owned by the sovereign, and individuals could
        purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government.
        Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights
        could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. In
        other words, a similar arrangement to a tenant in an apartment or house as
        having rights in the property, but not to the property.

        Finally, Mawat was state or unclaimed land, not owned by
        private individuals nor largely cultivated. These areas made up almost
        two-thirds of all territory.

        The area recently declared “State
        Land” by the Israeli government, a
        process which has been under an intensive ongoing investigation for many years,
        is Mawat land. In other words, it has no private status and is not privately
        owned.

        Many claims to the territory suddenly arose during the
        course of the investigation, but all were proven to be unfounded on the basis
        of land laws.

        Interestingly, it should be clearly understood by those who
        deem Judea and Samaria “occupied territory” that according to international law
        the occupying power must use the pre-existing land laws as a basis for claims,
        exactly as Israel has done in this case, even though Israel’s official position
        is that it does not see itself de jure as an occupying power in the legal sense
        of the term.

        None of these facts are even alluded to in the many reports
        surrounding the government’s actions in Gvaot. This is deeply unjust and a
        semblance of the relevant background, history and facts would provide the
        necessary context for what has been converted into an international incident
        where none should exist.

        I frequently take foreign visitors and officials on a tour
        of Efrat and Gush Etzion and am amazed at the well-meaning ignorance and
        preconceived positions that many, even friends of Israel,
        hold about the status of this area and wider Judea and Samaria.
        Usually, however, by the end of the tour many of these positions have been
        debunked and those that I speak with are astonished that there is even another
        side to the story, having been assured that the pro-Judea and Samaria
        position is based solely on the Bible.

        I welcome and even challenge anyone and everyone to come and
        see the reality for themselves and learn the history and context of the region,
        if only for the sake of intellectual honesty. No one ever lost out through
        intellectual curiosity, and I am certain that we can lessen the next furor and
        international incident if a greater number of people can be made more familiar
        with the facts of history.

  • Moldovar

    When will the world be rid of the jewish cancer.

  • Schecky

    Ten more twisted lies.

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    If you think I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic, you are welcome to present an argument.

  • Malus Ultor

    Pipe down Edomite.

    The days of jew duplicity and deceit are nearing an end. The internet will see to that. The Edomite and AshkeNAZI lies are coming out into the wash.

    You band of wandering thieves are a disgrace to the human race and your time will come, it is not too far into the future.

    This time you won’t just get thrown out of the temple.

  • Judea Reconquista

    “The yellow badge (or yellow patch)”
    was first introduced in ISLAMIC countries by the caliph Al-Mutawakkil in 850.
    to segregate jews,copts,hindus,Assyrians,Berber from the invading arab population long before the NAZIS.
    60% of the jews in israel (“mizrahi jews”)are refugees from ISLAMIC countries.

    google:

    “yellow badge”
    “Hitler and The Mufti Of Jerusalem”
    “islamic unit of the Waffen-SS”
    “Operation ATLAS Poisoning Tel-Aviv”
    “Hurva Synagogue”
    “Jewish exodus from Arab lands”
    “Hebron pogrom 1517″
    “1834 Hebron massacre”
    “plunder of Safed 1834″
    “Farhud”
    “Dhimmi”
    “tiberias massacre”
    “1945 Tripolitania pogrom”
    “Antisemitism in Turkey”
    “granada massacre 1066″
    “Damascus affair”
    “1934 Thrace Pogroms”
    “Fez pogrom 1912″
    “1948 Anti-Jewish Riots in Oujda and Jerada”
    “Shiraz blood libel 1910″
    “Aleppo pogroms 1853,1875,1947″
    “Jaffa riots 1921″
    “Allahdad incident”
    “1929 Hebron massacre”
    “Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques”

    like in nazi germany selling your house to a jew is still punishable by death by the P.A
    “Palestinian officer sentenced to death for selling home to a jew”:

    jews “old yishuv” were ethnically cleansed from gaza,hebron,Judea&Samaria, leaving behind their homes,shops E.T.C…(their grave stones desecrated, used as pavements and latrines)in many cases the new muslim occupiers didn’t even bother to erase the david star marks engraved by the former jewish owners on the stone gates and they are still visible today to the naked eye.

    92 years old arab woman gloats about hebron massacre
    http://www.israelnationalnews.Com/News/News.aspx/144262

    The final Goal is the end of Israel,but you can’t say that to the world”,says (B)alestinian ambassador Abbas Zaki”
    http://www.memritv.Org/clip/en/3130.htm

    (B)alestinian Leader Farouq Qaddoumi: “We Supported The Nazis In WWII because they were the enemies of the zionists”
    http://www.memritv.Org/clip/en/4075.html

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      The state of Israel was created by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Arabs from Palestine.

      • Helter Skelter

        Repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn’t make you correct.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          That is true.

          And yet the fact remains that the state of Israel was created by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Arabs from Palestine.

          • Helter Skelter

            You’ve already been thoroughly discredited in the comment section. Lmfao. The fact that you think otherwise shows that you really have no business discussing such matters. You’re a joke. No wonder you had to create a website just to have a job.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            You’ve already been thoroughly discredited in the comment section.

            This is not in evidence.

      • L_King

        No, it wasn’t. 6 Arab armies attacked the Jews with genocidal intent. Mahmoud Abbas admitted that his family fled Safed because they feared the Jews would do to them what the Arabs of Safed did to the Jews in 1929.

        Had the Jews lost there would have been “a war of extermination and a momentous massacre”.

        I don’t blame the Israelis for not letting most of them back to have a do over, especially considering what happened to the Jews of Arab lands.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          By the time the neighboring Arab states managed to muster a military response, a quarter of a million Arab Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed by the Zionist forces.

      • XtreeemMetalman

        Yeah but you hate Jewish Heritage. You said THE JEWS, not THE ISRAELIS. You’re on stolen Indian land buddy. ;) While Jewish Heritage, while it stole Palestine, they have no other Jewish State. Go back to Scotland, Wales, England or Holland. Ohio, Nebraska, Omaha, are not Euro-names are they now? You’re a Nazi, the end bro. Funny, the Nazis were on their rightful Germanic land, were they not?

      • Chris. K Cook

        Then why has the Arab population in Israel gotten bigger while Jews were slaughtered and driven out of Arab lands?

    • Liadan

      Palestinians are not responsible for what happens in other states. There was not conflict between Jews and Palestinians until the Zionists came in mid 1800s and started taking Palestinian land then,

      You are doing a lot of mud-slinging that in no way justifies Israel’s massacres of Palestinians and the expulsions and theft of land.

  • https://www.facebook.com/draiman.israel Draiman Israel

    “No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in all of the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country or homeland whatsoever. This is a right vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition or circumstance. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”
    BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
    INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
    at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)

  • https://www.facebook.com/draiman.israel Draiman Israel

    Arabs expelled the Jews from all their countries.
    The Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The migration started in the late 19th century, but accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. According to official Arab statistics, over 989,000 Jews were forced out of their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970’s. Some 600,000 resettled in Israel, [1] leaving behind personal property valued today at more than $990 billion.[2][3] Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands has been estimated at 120,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the State of Israel). Valued today at about 15 trillion dollars [4]
    Not abused? I feel like swearing here. you can bet your rear end they were abused.
    Patricia Metzger’s campaign to achieve justice sheds light on a little-discussed aspect of the Israeli-Arab conflict: In the wake of the War of Independence and the establishment of Israel, two major population movements took place in the Middle East. The one that is frequently mentioned is the Palestinian exodus, but at the same time almost one million Jews were forced to leave Arab countries where they had lived for hundreds of years. According to official Arab statistics, due to persecution, some 950,000 Jews left those countries from 1948 to the beginning of the 1970s, and about 600,000 of them were absorbed in Israel. For the sake of comparison, the United Nations data estimate the original population of Arab-Palestinian refugees at 580,000.
    Because we had no home for nearly two thousand years, Israel made itself independent of its Arab-British oppressors in 1948. In that year, another great Jewish Exodus occurred, leading to a large increase in the population of Israel and the decimation of some of the oldest Jewish communities on earth.

    Jews have lived in the countries now occupied by Arabs since the destruction of the first Temple in 586 B.C.E. Yet, the descendants of these original inhabitants of so many Middle Eastern lands were driven out of their ancestral homes by the religious bigotry and racial animosity of the Arab invaders.

    In 1945 there were more than 995,000 Jews living in Arabic speaking countries. Today, there are less than 8,000. Some Arab states like Libya are completely judenrein, i.e., cleansed of Jews, as the Arabs’ best friend, Hitler, liked to say.

    About 630,000 of these Jews were absorbed by Israel. Another 350,000 went to Europe, America or Australia. Evidently, then, the refugee problem in the Middle East consists of the failure of the Arab states to compensate these 986,000 for the property and assets they were forced to leave behind.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Nothing justifies the Zionists’ ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Arabs from Palestine to make way for their racist project of establishing a “Jewish state”.

  • https://www.facebook.com/evan.cohn1 Evan Cohn

    Ethnic cleansing? There is a factual error. Ethnic cleansing is not what happened to the Arabs that left Israel at the war of Independence.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      750,000 Arabs fled out of fear of further massacres like that at Deir Yassin or were forcibly expelled by the Zionist forces, none of whom were ever allowed to return to their homes.

      That is ethnic cleansing.

  • https://www.facebook.com/angelis.dania Angelis Dania

    Jeremy Sir, just thank you. Truly. Your work is appreciated and vital.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Thanks, Angelis. Please share!

      • Larry Armstrong

        I agree. I think you’re brilliant and spot on.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          Thank you, Larry.

  • http://gravatar.com/mendey Mark

    Assuming you are sincere in your research, here are a few facts and arguments you may have overseen.

    Myth #1.
    While it may be true that there wasn’t major conflict in the levant before zionism, Jews were still considered second class citizens in the ottoman empire. The only reason there was no conflict was because the Jews did not rise up against the ottomans, though they would have every justification to rebel.
    The riots in Jaffa were actually a massacre by the Arabs, the arabs who died were largely a result of them clashing with the british forces who came to stop the riots.
    While it may be true that the riots were caused because of the arab fear of a Jewish state, I assume you are not suggesting that massacring innocent men, women and children is justified.
    The ‘major violence’ of 1929 you refer to was actually massacres by the arab population against Jewish men, women and children then living in the mandate of Palestine.
    Additionally, there were massacres perpetrated against the Jewish communities of Safed and Hebron in 1834 and 1838.

    Myth #2.
    Few believe that Israel’s legitimacy is based on a U.N. resolution, but it cannot be denied that there never was an independent Palestinian state or a Palestinian national identity before WWI. So the Palestinian state was also created by the same resolution or recommendation.
    Myth #3.
    The fact remains that had the arabs accepted the U.N.’s recommendation and not attacked Israel, they would have a state today. Do you deny that?
    I’m curious, where did you get the land ownership data from 1945? My understanding is that most of the mandate of Palestine was desolate. You have your facts wrong. Look it up.

    Myth #4.
    The fact is that the past few Israeli Prime Ministers have promised to recognize a Palestinian state if they were to promise to cease the terror. They recognize the Palestinian state’s right to exist but not at the expense of Israel. The rules are simple, stop the terror, get a state. If you doubt this, I can show you many times when Israeli Prime Ministers have said so and even taken unilateral action toward such a goal.
    In 1948, all the arab states that invaded Israel were dictatorships, don’t you find it curious that they would come defend the Palestinians right to representation when their own citizens did not have that right? Perhaps it was more of an anti-semitic attack on Israel, because they saw the Jews, who they considered second class citizens, rising up against their Muslim overlords who had treated them as second class citizens throughout history?
    The Deir Yassin massacre is admittedly a black stain on Israel’s history and it has taken responsibility for it. But it cannot be denied that it was perpetrated by a radical militant group that was not part of the central Israeli army. The fact remains that it was a outlier and if the Israelis plan was to kill Palestinians, they would have killed many more. There are more than one million arabs living in Israel and have more freedom than any arab citizen from any other country in the region.

    Myth #5.
    Firing the first shot does not mean that you aren’t threatened with annihilation, it just means that you aren’t ready to be annihilated. If you want I can point you to rhetoric by Nassar where he threatens Israel with annihilation. Israel was a tiny state and wasn’t ready to take any chances and they didn’t.
    I’d like to see your sources for all your quotes of Israeli ministers saying what you allege they had said.

    Myth #6.
    Let’s not forget that in the U.N. there is only one Jewish state and 47 muslim states, 27 of which are arab. Do you think that the U.N. is an legitimate impartial body that should be trusted to judge Israeli disputes with their neighbors fairly?

    Myth #7
    The Lebanon war was a direct result of PLO terror attempts against Israelis. From 1968 and escalating during the Lebanese civil war when Palestinians had massacred thousands of lebanese christians (from 1975) the Lebanon border had been a constant source of attacks against Israelis. The Sabra and Shatila massacres were not carried out by Israel, they were carried out by the Kataeb Party militia. Look it up.
    Regarding Cast Lead, you have missed many important pieces of information. Between 2005, when Israel left Gaza, and 2008, when Israel launched operation cast lead, Hamas fired thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel, often with no retaliation.

    Myth #8
    While there are many who believe that G-d gave the land of Israel to the Jews, the leaders of Israel were not religious and nowhere in their declaration of independence or their literature does it suggest that Israel’s legitimacy is based on the bible. It is only used as a historical document to prove that Israel is the historic Jewish homeland from which they were expelled.

    Myth #9
    Read the Hamas charter, it contradicts everything you claim.

    Myth #10
    When a judge passes a verdict, that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t initially impartial. While the U.S. does support Israel, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t initially impartial, but it has chosen to side with the only democracy in the middle east, where, ironically, ordinary arabs have the highest standard of living and the most rights than any other country in the middle east.

    If you want to know my sources for any of the facts mentioned above, I will be glad to send them to you.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Mark,

      Myth #1

      The Arabs of Palestine did not rule the Ottoman Empire, but, like the Jews of Palestine, were subjected by it.

      Once again, Arabs and Jews in Palestine got along for the most part as neighbors until the rise of the Zionist movement.

      Once again, the Arab attacks on Jews that occurred in 1921 and 1929 were not the result of inherent anti-Semitism, but a consequence of the Arabs’ reasonable fears about being disenfranchised and displaced from their homeland.

      Myth #2

      On the contrary, it is a widely-held belief that Israel’s legitimacy is based on a UN resolution.

      How remarkable that you state few believe this and then repeat the same error yourself by insisting that both Israel and Palestine were created by Resolution 181.

      Once again, that is false. See:

      http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

      Myth #3

      The fact remains that the UN partition proposal was inherently unjust and required of the Arabs to surrender their rights and their property.

      The facts about land ownsership are as I’ve stated them. See:

      http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

      Myth #4

      Once again, no state has a “right to exist”, and this concept is applied exclusively to Israel — but not to Palestine — in order to remove the discussion from its proper framework, which is the right of all peoples to self-determination, a right Israel denies to the Palestinians and not vice versa.

      Myth #5

      The facts are as I’ve stated them. Once again, Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Nasser would have to be insane to attack Israel. The CIA observed that Egypt’s forces in the Sinai had taken up defensive positions.

      Myth #6

      My opinion of the UN is irrelevant. Once again, the fact is that Resolution 242 called on Israel to fully withdraw from the occupied territories in acccordance with the fundamental principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.

      Myth #7

      The facts are as I’ve stated them. I mentioned the bombing of the refugee camps, but didn’t even mention the Sabra and Shatila massacre you are referring to, which was carried out under the watchful eye of Israeli forces — look it up.

      Regarding Operation Cast Lead, the facts, again, are as I’ve stated them. Once again, it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated the ceasefire.

      Myth #8

      You are right, Zionism was and is not a religious movement, but a political one. Not sure how pointing this out affects my argument, as I did not state otherwise. There are, nevertheless, many religious Jews who are also Zionists and many Christians who are Zionists, both of whom employ a theological argument that is invalid on its own terms, as I’ve explained.

      Myth #9

      I’ve read the Hamas charter. The facts remain as I’ve stated them: once again, Hamas has repeatedly since 2005 declared its willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel with the 1967 lines as a border.

      Myth #10

      I’ll merely note that you just acknowledged that the US is not an impartial broker, but sides with Israel in the conflict.

      • http://gravatar.com/mendey Mark

        Myth #1
        It is true that the arabs did not rule Palestine, but they were part of the ‘elite’ muslim population who did receive favorable treatment from the ruling muslim ottomans. The Jews were treated as second class citizens and while there may not have been violent conflict, don’t you think it is misleading to say that it is a myth that the Jews and Arabs were not in conflict?

        Myth #2
        I don’t know the details of the UN resolution or recommendation as you suggest it, but I think that we agree that the UN is, or should be, a irrelevant body, and I don’t understand why you feel that what people believe the UN did is one of the ‘Top ten myths’ about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

        Myth #3
        The map you’ve presented shows less than 50 percent of geographical Israel (it shows the inhabited areas). Most of the land that is Israel, in the Negev or the south, was uninhabited, even this map shows that the south was 85 percent ‘public’.
        The partition plan gave most of the arabs the land that they owned and the Jews the land that they owned. Even that land that the arabs owned in Israeli controlled areas would still belong to them, but they would be under Israeli autonomy. The fact that there are 1.5 million arabs that live in Israel with the same rights as the Jews proves this.
        Now while you may think that the partition was unjust, that doesn’t mean that the arabs didn’t miss an opportunity, it is not a myth.

        Myth #4
        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that you are an anarchist and you therefore don’t believe in states?
        I won’t go into that now, but assuming you are correct, those who believe that Israel has a right to exist, mean it in the way that if any state has a right to exist, Israel does too. Put into its proper context, I don’t see why that is a myth.
        But even according to anarchists, if there is any state that has a right to exist, it is Israel. Beginning in the early 20th century up until Israeli independence, the JNF bought more than 350 square miles from arab landowners in the inhabited areas of Mandate Palestine.

        Myth #5
        If you read the newspapers of the eve of the six day war, you will see that conventional wisdom was that Nassar was threatening a second holocaust. Jews around the world were preparing for the worst.
        Let’s not forget that it was Nasser who closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which according to international law is an act of war, and it was Nasser who told the UN peacekeeping forces to leave Sinai, and it was Nasser who said (May 26) that ‘the basic objective will be to destroy Israel’. Do you really think that Israel should have waited to be attacked because of something the CIA said?
        Can you provide sources for the Israeli quotes you’ve mentioned?

        Myth #6
        I will concede, though I am not convinced, it is possible that you are correct. But still is that really one of the ‘top ten myths’ about the conflict?

        Myth #7
        I stand corrected, you did not mention the massacre. For the record, in Sharon v. Time (1984), a New York jury found that Time magazine’s story blaming Israel (Sharon) for the massacre was ‘false and defamatory’.
        Regarding Cast Lead, can you give me the date you allege Israel violated the cease fire?

        Myth #8
        You have omitted many sources where the bible says that the Jews will return to Israel later on, so your argument is missing many important verses. (See Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 30, Ezekiel 38, Zechariah 14 and many, many more).
        But I think that this is entirely irrelevant, since the ruling body in Israel does not believe this. But you are suggesting that this is one of the ‘top ten myths’ about the conflict, how can this be so important if most of Israel’s supporters doesn’t even believe this?

        Myth #9
        But the fact remains that the Hamas charter still calls for the destruction of Israel, why, if what you are saying is correct, would they not amend it?
        I further challenge you to show me a source where the leaders of Hamas say that they will recognize Israel. Yes, they have said that they can live in peace with the Israelis, but that is very different than saying that they will live with Israel. They have said that if the Israelis agree to Sharia, they will live peacefully with them, but that is not an acceptance of Israel.

        Myth #10
        But that is like saying that any judge who passes a verdict is not impartial because they have chosen a side.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

          Myth #1

          How interesting to learn that the Arab fellahin in Palestine were members of “the ‘elite'” under Ottoman rule. Remarkable.

          Once again, the fact is that Arab and Jewish Palestinians generally got along as neighbors until the rise of the Zionist movement.

          Myth #2

          I’ll simply note that you aren’t challenging me on any point of fact or logic, merely wondering why I included the myth of the UN creation of Israel on the list, the answer to which I consider self-evident. If it isn’t self-evident to you and you wish to better understand its relevance and importance, please read:

          http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

          Myth #3

          The map shows precisely what I described in the article, to wit:

          Additionally, land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent – and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land.

          The fact that you are arguing that the Arabs should have accepted the inherently unjust partition plan simply illustrates your own rejection of their right to self-determination.

          Myth #4

          You say you don’t understand why it is a myth that Israel has a “right to exist”. Please see the above article. I explain it there.

          (Also, once again, the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land in Palestine at the time of the unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel.)

          Myth #5

          You are making the mistake of confusing “conventional wisdom” with historical fact. Once again, Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Egypt was not going to launch an attack on Israel. If you want a source for that, I have an impeccable one: Michael B. Oren.

          Myth #6

          That I am correct is not a mere possibility. It is not a matter of opinion but a simple pont of fact that Resolution 242 called on Israel to fully withdraw from the occupied territories in acccordance with the fundamental principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.

          Myth #7

          Notwithstanding what a New York jury supposedly had to say about the matter, Israel’s own investigation found Sharon bore “personal responsibility” for the Sabra-Shatila massacre. It was the IDF who controlled the area and Sharon who decided that the Phalangist militias should be sent into the camps despite the known risk that civilians would be massacred as a result.

          http://www.hrw.org/news/2001/06/22/israel-sharon-investigation-urged

          http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/11/israel-ariel-sharon-s-troubling-legacy

          Myth #8

          I fail to see how the importance of the theological argument of Jewish and Christian Zionists, which is as I’ve shown invalid even on its own terms, is not self-evident.

          Myth #9

          Why should Hamas recognize Israel when Israel refuses to recognize Palestine? Again, the fact is that Hamas has repeatedly since 2005 declared its willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel with the 1967 lines as a border.

          Myth #10

          I’ll merely note that you have for a second time acknowledged that the US is not an impartial mediator in the conflict.

          • http://gravatar.com/mendey Mark

            Myth #1
            Again, the Jews were still second class citizens, the arabs were not. There were massacres in the 19th century in Safed and Hebron, even before Hertzl was born. To say there was no conflict is not true.

            Myth #2
            Correct, I am not challenging you on any facts but I am curious as to why you consider something that the UN did, which is a irrelevent body as far as morals are concerned, is a ‘top myth’ about Israel. Why do you consider it relevant in this conflict?

            Myth #3
            The arabs were granted autonomy over most of the land that they owned. I clearly accept their right to self determination, as does Israel, as they have the same voting and other rights as any other Israeli. Do you deny that?

            Myth #4
            I read what you wrote, but within context, I don’t understand why it is a myth that Israel has a right to exist.
            Just because Jews may have owned only 7% of the land, that does not mean that the rest of the land belonged to the arabs, most of it was (and still is) uncultivated desert land. Only because of Israeli technology some of it has become arable.

            Myth #5
            Conventional wisdom of the time is a historical fact. Who is Michael B.?

            Myth #6
            Again, even if true, why do you consider that such an important fact?

            Myth #7
            That is only because Israel holds itself to a very high moral standard, and when a massacre can be prevented and is not, those who could have possibly prevented it are held accountable. But it is clear that it was no perpetrated by the Israelis.

            Myth #8
            Because in the passages that you omit, it says that the Jews will return to the land of Israel in later generations. Thus, according to that those who occupy the land that belongs to them are occupiers.

            Myth #9
            You stated that Hamas is ready to accept the state of Israel, I just asked for a source, please provide one.

            Myth #10
            Just curious, do you consider yourself impartial?

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Myth #1
            I did not say there was no conflict. The point is that the belief that things have always been the way they are now between Jews and Arabs is a false one. The point is illustrated, for example, by the Shaw Commission report: “In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.”

            Myth #2
            I cannot comprehend your incomprehension of how the UN General Assembly’s adoption of Resolution 181 is relevant to the conflict. Stretch your imagination. Or just read the other essay I provided you the link to.

            Myth #3
            No, it is not clear that you accept the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. On the contrary, it is clear from your insistence that they should have accepted the UN partition plan that you reject it.

            It is preposterous for you to hypothesize that the Zionists intended for Arabs to have equal rights in their proposed “Jewish state” when the historical fact of the matter is that Israel was birthed through the ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine’s Arab population.

            Myth #4
            What do you mean by “within context”? What part of what I wrote about how no state has a “right to exist” do you not comprehend?

            Myth #5

            Conventional wisdom of the time is a historical fact.

            Yes. Even when it was wrong, as in this case.

            Michael B. Oren: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oren

            Myth #6
            I cannot comprehend your incomprehension of how the fact that Israel launched a war of aggression against Egypt in June 1967 might be relevant to the conflict. You are trolling.

            Myth #7
            I cannot agree with you that the moral standard Israel exercises is a “very high” one. Or if Israel standard is a very high one, then I can’t agree it very well holds itself to it — the Sabra and Shatila massacre being a perfectly suitable example.

            Myth #8
            Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

            Myth #9
            I have already provided you with sources that Hamas has repeatedly since 2005 declared its willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel with the 1967 lines as a border. See the article. If you want links, I’m sure you know how to use Google. It’s very quick.

            Myth #10
            That might depend on how you define “impartial”.

  • http://gravatar.com/mendey Mark

    Reply to Jeremy:
    1. In the article you do say that it is a myth that “Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region” and that “For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors.” Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by ‘conflict’ and ‘got along’ but do you really consider riots of 1660, 1665, 1828, 1867, 1834, 1838, the blood libel of 1840, 1875, 1897, 1929, 1936-37 being given second class ‘dhimmi’ status when there were no riots, forced conversions and being subject to the ‘jizya’ tax and other punitive taxes, is that not conflict?

    2. The reason I feel it is irrelevant is because I don’t think that the UN carries and legal or moral weight. But if you feel that they do, won’t you acknowledge that an independent state of Palestine was ‘created’ through the same resolution or ‘recommendation’?

    3. Well than let me state it clearly, I believe that every human being has the right to self determination, and that includes all arabs.
    Was there ever a time when Israeli arabs did not have the same rights as all other Israelis?
    When was there ethnic cleansing?

    4. I understand that you believe that no country has a right to exist, but people believe that Israel has a right to exist just like America has a right to exist. Is that a myth?

    5. Can you provide a source where Michael Oren said what you allege?
    Here is a quote from Michael Oren’s book:
    “On the morning of May 16, 1967, Egypt’s president, Gamal Abdul Nasser, moved on his plan for a military offensive.”
    http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-oren.html

    6. Hey, let’s try not to get personal. That was not my question. My question is why do you consider UN resolution 242 so relevant to the conflict. Do you think that the UN is a impartial and moral body?
    You may find this enlightening.
    http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/New-study-of-UN-Resolution-242-could-alter-views-of-Israeli-Arab-conflict-386436

    7. Again, the Sabra and Shatilla massacre was not committed by the Israelis, they found that Sharon could have possibly prevented it, and he was therefore censured because of their high standard.

    8. Let me put it into a syllogism. (This is according to those who believe in the bible).
    Though God had said that the Jews will be expelled from Israel, it still belongs to them and they will later return.
    Anybody who occupies a land that God gave to another is an occupier.
    The arabs have occupied Israel, they are therefore occupiers.
    Where’s the flaw?

    9. I have Googled and this is what I’ve found:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/middleeast/06palestinians.html?_r=0
    “Asked if a deal honoring those principles would produce an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Meshal said, ‘I don’t want to talk about that'”
    Yes, they’ve accepted a two state solution but they do not promise peace in return. All that means is that they will take what they can get and fight for the rest. That’s not an acceptance of Israel.
    Do you have other sources?

    10. Do you think that an impartial body exists?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      1. You are arguing as though I have claimed that there had never been any instances in which Arabs and Jews came into conflict in Palestine prior to the Zionist movement. I have not. Rather, I pointed out that it is a myth that there has always been conflict between Jews and Arabs as there is today.

      2. You still have not read this. Please do:

      http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

      3. No, you do not believe that every human being has the right to self-determination as illustrated by the fact that you’ve insisted that the Arabs should have accepted the UN partition plan, which explicitly rejected their right to self-determination.

      Now, you asked about the timing when I said, “Israel was birthed through the ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine’s Arab population.” Read it again. Your answer is right there. Use some deduction if you feel it necessary to think that hard about it.

      4. No, it is not a myth that many people believe that Israel has a right to exist. If that was a myth, I would not have written my “Myth #4″ above (where I point out that it is a myth that Israel has a right to exist.)

      5. Oren acknowledges in his book that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”. He goes on to explain how Israeli intelligence assessed that “Nasswer would have to be deranged” to attack Israel.

      Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (New York: Presidio Press, 2003), 59.

      No, the quote you provided is not from Oren’s book.

      6. I can’t imagine what part of my previous reply you consider to have been “personal”. Do you really do not know Resolution 242’s relevance to the conflict?

      My opinion of the UN is not relevant.

      7. Yes, the Sabra and Shatila massacre was committed by the Israelis. They controlled the area, they knew what would happen if they sent in the Phalangist militias, and Sharon gave the order to do so. Then the Israeli forces sat and watched as defenseless civilians were slaughtered.

      8. The flaw in your syllogism is in line one. The part that reads “it still belongs to them”. Incorrect. Please see “Myth #8″ above.

      9. You ask for sources. I could go and copy/paste the quotes I provided in the above article and Google them to find sources, same as you could. But, to save myself time, I’ll just copy/paste an excerpt from my forthcoming book:

      To cite a few examples, in early 2005, Hamas issued a document outlining the idea of a unity government with Fatah that “fore the first time in its existence,” Haaretz reported, “unequivocally recognizes the 1967 borders and adopts the main principle guiding Fatah: the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”[i] In early 2006, Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar publicly stated that Hamas was seeking a Palestinian state and would accept a long-term truce with Israel if it withdrew from the territories occupied in 1967.[ii] Ismail Haniyeh, as already noted, reiterated to the Washington Post in February 2006 that Hamas would accept an agreement for “the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders”.[iii] In December 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said that “all the Palestinian factions agree to a return of Israel’s borders to pre-1967 designations…. We accept the need for two countries to exist, but Israel has no legitimacy so long as the occupation continues.”[iv] Meshal repeated the following month that Hamas was “with the consensus of the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state on the June 4 borders, including (East) Jerusalem, the right of return and the withdrawal of Israel to these borders.” When asked whether this presupposed the existence of Israel, he answered, “The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent. There is a reality that Israel exists on Palestinian territory…. There will remain a state called Israel. This is an issue of fact, but the Palestinians should not be required to recognize Israel…. As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or a state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land…. We are demanding a Palestinian state on the 1967 border including Jerusalem and the right of return.”[v] Former US President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas officials in April 2008 and relayed their acceptance of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines and willingness to “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace” if it withdrew.[vi] Hamas’s “ultimate goal”, Carter said, “is to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.”[vii] Meshal at the same time repeated, “We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognizing Israel…. We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as proof of recognition.”[viii] Haaretz explained that “Meshal used the Arabic word hudna, meaning truce, which is more concrete than tahdiya—a period of calm—which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire. Hudna implies a recognition of the other party’s existence.”[ix] On November 8, 2008, four days after Israel’s violation of the ceasefire, Haniyeh once again reiterated his government’s willingness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 lines.[x]

      [i] Arnon Regular, “Jihad denies reports it struck ceasefire deal with Abbas,” Haaretz, January 21, 2005.

      [ii] “Hamas leader sets conditions for truce,” CNN, January 29, 2006.

      [iii] “‘We Do Not Wish to Throw Them Into the Sea,’” Washington Post, February 26, 2006.

      [iv] “Report: Hamas chief Meshal calls for 10-year cease-fire,” Haaretz, December 11, 2006.

      [v] “Q&A with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal,” Reuters, January 10, 2007.

      [vi] “Carter Mideast trip: Few tangible results,” Associated Press, April 21, 2008.

      [vii] Griff Witte, “Carter: Hamas Ready To Live Beside Israel,” Washington Post, April 22, 2008.

      [viii] Roee Nahmias, “Hamas says accepts Palestinian statehood,” Ynetnews, April 21, 2008.

      [ix] Barak Ravid, “Meshal offers 10-year truce for Palestinian state on ‘67 borders,” Haaretz, April 21, 2008.

      [x] Amira Hass, “Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders,” Haaretz, November 9, 2008.

      10. As you acknowledge that what I wrote is true, there seems nothing more to discuss on this one.

      • http://gravatar.com/mendey Mark

        1. But you have stated that it is a myth that the Jews and the arabs have always been in conflict in the region. Can you give me a time when the Jews were not considered second class citizens and not subject to additional taxes or a time when they did not live under the threat of a riot?

        2. I read it. I still don’t see why the UN resolution or recommendation is relevant.

        3. Had the arabs accepted the UN plan, the arabs who would live in Israel would have more self determination than any other arab citizen ever had in the middle east. Those who did choose to live in Israel have the same rights as almost any citizen in any democracy.
        Read what I wrote again, I asked when did this ethnic cleansing you are referring to, occur?

        4. So I would assume that you would agree that the state of Palestine doesn’t have the right to exist either?

        5. The quotes you provide do not suggest that Oren believes the six day war was offensive. Oren maintains that the Israeli strike was a response to the closure of the straits of Tiran, the removal of the UN peacekeeping troops and the Egyptian military buildup.
        “Israel views the closure of the Straits of Tiran as an act of Belligerency and will defend itself against it…”
        (Here is a link to a preview of the book)
        https://books.google.com/books?id=dlMW4GSQHnYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=michael+oren&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n6O4VOrwKIbFggTbvoGIBw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=michael%20oren&f=false

        6. You said “You are trolling”. Never mind. Forgiven.
        I’ve read 242, and I think that your opinion about it is incorrect, but even if your opinion were correct, why should what the UN says be binding?

        7. Are you suggesting that when the Israelis know that Hamas is committing atrocities in Gaza and they do not prevent it, then they are responsible for it?

        8. See Genesis 13:15 “For all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your descendants forever.” Exodus 32:13 “I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever”
        God said that it will belong to the Jews forever. Even the verses you quote suggest that God will send them from the land, but nowhere does it say that the land will cease to belong to them.

        9. You still didn’t provide any evidence that Hamas would recognize Israel. You expressly quoted Meshal “When asked whether this presupposed the existence of Israel,” he responded that “…the Palestinians should not be required to recognize Israel”. He NEVER agreed to recognize Israel. The most he agreed to was a ten year truce, is that not correct?

        10. A half truth at best. Would you say that an honest broker exists at all?

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          1. You are confusing the Arab Palestinians with the Ottoman Turks.

          2. Here, this should help you understand the relevance of Resolution 181 to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

          The Role of the U.N. in Creating the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

          3. You are arguing that the Arab Palestinians could be exercising self-determination today if only they had surrendered the same right in 1947.

          4. No state has a “right to exist”. Period. Got it?

          5. Oren’s opinion is irrelevant. It’s the facts that matter, and the fact is that Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Egypt had no intention of starting a war. And, in fact, the war was not launched by Egypt, but by Israel.

          6. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of historical fact that Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw completely from the territories it occupied during the 1967 war in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.

          7. No. Once again, the IDF controlled the area, they knew what would happen if they sent in the Phalangist militias, and Sharon gave the order to do so. Then the Israeli forces sat and watched as defenseless civilians were slaughtered. It is difficult to see how one can argue, given these facts, that the IDF had no responsibility for the massacre.

          8. I am not clear oabout what part of the verses I quoted with regard to how the Hebrews perpetually violated their covenant with Yahweh you do not understand. Perhaps you simply do not undertand what a covenant is? It’s basically a contract. The Hebrews broke their contract, so the deal was off. Yahweh cast them out and gave their land over to others. This is a central theme of the Bible. Hard to miss.

          9. You are right, I did not present any evidence that Hamas would recognize Israel. I did not do so because I did not write that Hamas would do so. I wrote that Hamas has repeatedly since 2005 expressed its willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel along the 1967 borders. And so it has.

          10. Please explain what you mean by saying it is a “half truth at best” that the US is not the “honest broker” it makes itself out to be. It is a very puzzling statement.

          • Mark

            1. It was the arabs who committed the massacres.

            2. That only explains the relevance of the resolution, not of the UN itself. I don’t believe that the UN is a relevant body that has a right to determine who should control a state. Do you disagree?

            3. I am saying that had the arabs accepted the partition plan, they would have more self determination than have ever had in the region.

            4. Well than why not say that it is neither Israel nor Palestine have a right to exist, why do you only point out that it is a myth that Israel has a right to exist and omit that Palestine does not have that right either?

            5. You mentioned Oren, not me. The reason you mentioned it was a response to my request for a source that the Israeli intelligence determined there was no threat. You quoted Oren, now that Oren is out, where is your source?

            Incorrect. Egypt committed the first act of war when it closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.

            6. Perhaps you should read this:
            http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/New-study-of-UN-Resolution-242-could-alter-views-of-Israeli-Arab-conflict-386436

            The fact remains that the land Israeli ‘occupied’ was never part of an independent state of Palestine.

            7. That is what Time’s lawyers argued and an impartial jury disagreed. (See Sharon v. Time 1984)

            8. The verses clearly say that the land will belong to them forever. Nowhere does it say that if they break the covenant they will lose the land, only that they will be expelled from it, nowhere does it say that it will cease to belong to them.

            9. You did say that it is a myth that the Palestinians reject the two state solution. It is not. Hamas only accepts a Palestinian state, not an Israeli state. The two state solution requires recognizing Israel.
            It is a fact that Hamas does not accept the two state solution.

            10. Why just say that it is a myth that the U.S. is a honest broker, why not say that it is a myth that an honest broker exists in the conflict altogether?
            That is as dishonest as singling out one individual for making a honest mistake when everybody makes honest mistakes.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            1. Which brings me right back to what I said two replies ago: You are arguing as though I have claimed that there had never been any instances in which Arabs and Jews came into conflict in Palestine prior to the Zionist movement. I have not. Rather, I pointed out that it is a myth that there has always been conflict between Jews and Arabs as there is today.

            You are arguing in circles. You have been warned twice already about trolling. Three strikes. Youre priveleges are revoked.

            2. Back to the point: It widely held belief that the UN created Israel is a myth.

            3. You are arguing that the Arab Palestinians could be exercising self-determination today if only they had surrendered the same right in 1947.

            No further comment required.

            4. Because I do not assume my readers are too stupid to draw an elementary conclusion on their own.

            5. Egypt did not attack Israel. The 1967 war began on the morning of June 5, when Israel launched a surprise attack on Egypt despite its own intelligence assessing that Egypt would not attack Israel.

            6. I read it before writing my previous reply, which I repeat: It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of historical fact that Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw completely from the territories it occupied during the 1967 war in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.

            7. Once again, the IDF controlled the area, they knew what would happen if they sent in the Phalangist militias, and Sharon gave the order to do so. Then the Israeli forces sat and watched as defenseless civilians were slaughtered. It is difficult to see how one can argue, given these facts, that the IDF had no responsibility for the massacre.

            8. Don’t pretend like you can’t comprehend the concept of a contract. The Hebrews broke the contract. Most of the Old Testament is about that. It’s hard to miss.

            9. The PLO, recognized as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”, has long accepted the two-state solution.

            10. Because to say that would make no sense. There is only one “peace process”. Only one country that acts as mediator in that process. There is nothing “dishonest” about identifying that country. It is the US. The US is the — yes “the” — dishonest broker.

  • S_O_T_A

    Your eighth point is hilarious in its historical cherry-picking as it is ironic and self-defeating.

    Your quotes from Genesis ignore the entire narrative following Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with Joseph paving the way for the survival of Israel in Egypt due to famine. Your last quote from Genesis is from chapter 28, but Genesis is 50 chapters long. That’s a lot of missing context which is relied upon to explain Israel’s presence.

    Your quotes about Israel’s rebellion are correct, but again they are selective. They miss the fact that Israel repented and was blessed by God when they returned. In fact, all of this was predicted by God – i.e. their rebellion, their lament, their return – well in advance. Isaiah and Jeremiah’s writings make this clear and the overall rebellion was in fact predicted by God at the end of Deuteronomy too. Ezra and Nehemiah are at least two books you conveniently leave out of your quotes – and no wonder! They completely refute the notion that Israel’s presence is wrong where they are now.

    You do know that a second temple was built, right?

    Finally, using the argument is in itself ludicrous because it can only work if you admit the historical truth that Jews lived in that land for hundreds and hundreds of years, so they can in no meaningful or accurate sense be considered ‘occupiers’. Making such an admission destroys virtually everything else you’ve written. Furthermore you are not God and in no position to offer judgement on a covenant between Him and Israel, when you misrepresent the full nature of it!

    Anybody who makes a point that undermines his own argument is obviously not thinking straight. And the ninth point that claims Hamas don’t seek the destruction of Israel is a blatant lie. Hamas has openly stated it seeks all Jews to be dead and the recent tactic of using aid money to build over 30 terror tunnels into Israel from the Gaza strip proves that.. This entire essay says more about your bias than anything else.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      As I’ve shown, it is those who make the theological argument that all of Palestine belongs to the Jews who ignore the entire narrative of the Old Testament. The theme about how the Hebrews perpetually violated their covenant with Yahweh is pretty hard to miss. It must take an extraordinary effort not to notice it — assuming you’ve ever actually read the Bible.

      You’re also missing the whole part about the new covenant, as well as the meaning of the Torah, including Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not covet that which is thy neighbors, and Thou shalt not steal.

      Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank haven’t existed for “hundreds and hundreds of years”, no.

      • S_O_T_A

        You missed my overall point and your answer only further digs a hole for yourself. It does not matter what kind of argument you bring to try to explain away the history of the Jewish people in that land. No matter what level of right the Israelites have to that land – be it considered big (by people like me) or small (by people like you), my point is that Palestinians will always have less. Any standard you hold up to the Israelites must be appied to them as well, and you consistently fail to do that.

        Check and mate.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          You are welcome to present an argument, as opposed to spewing meaningless words.

          • S_O_T_A

            I did present an argument and a very straightforward one at that. I’m simply asking you apply the same standards you judge the Israel people by to the Palestinians.

            It is illuminating that once your deception is revealed (and you have attempted to hide it by using many words in your original post), you are forced to ignore it and launch into a misrepresentation and hostility. Your response betrays what you really think and it is far from rational or reasonable. ‘Israel=bad, Palestine=good.’

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

            You are also welcome to try to support your charge of a double-standard on my part with an argument.

          • XtreeemMetalman

            Odd how you condone Racist and Fascist antisemitic comments. Because you are a racist and antisemitic. Id’ respect you if you were an Arab

        • Tweet Afton

          This is something for you to ponder.

          The overwhelming majority of the Human populace despises the AskeNAZI / Edomites / Counterfeit jews hailing from the Russia and the Caucasus bordering Mongolia.

          • XtreeemMetalman

            The so-called Khazar Theory is a racist joke. If they did come from there, it was in 1800, centuries ago. The Normans conquered England too in 900-1000. They should leave as well? Stop racializing this conflict.

  • bengg

    this article contains misleading information and many lies by a politically biased writer who distorts historical well known facts

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      Bengg,

      I challenge you to support your claim that the article “contains misleading information and many lies”. Good luck with that.

      • Helter Skelter

        Numerous people have taken you up on that challenge and all you do is shove your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself. Even resorting to childish antics like chanting “blah blah blah” whenever someone talks. The *only* thing you have proven is that A) you have no working knowledge on the matter, and B) you’re an ignorant little child.
        Grow up.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          My challenge you to support your claim that the article “contains misleading information and many lies” remains open. Good luck with that.

  • Helter Skelter

    A country is represented by its people. So saying Israel has the right to exist is fully valid. Especially when you consider the fact that Palestine isn’t even recognized as a country. I just love when you people reveal you haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      The concept of a state having a “right to exist” is nonsense. See above.

      Ironic you should say “A country is represented by its people” when Israel was established by ethnically cleansing most of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants, wiping their towns off the map, and creating Jewish ones in their place.

      • Helter Skelter

        And yet, whenever you’re asked for proof, you refuse it. Lmfao. Considering we already know you to be a liar, why should anyone believe this inane claim?

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          The proof is in reason. It is a logical truism. See the article.

  • SonofZion

    Every word, but every single word, is a lie. Hammond, you are a great propagandist, but without doubt a filthy liar. Either that or you are well paid by your Arab masters. Roast in hell.

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

    Dear Big Poppa E,

    I did not include footnotes with this piece because it is simply a compilation of previous work. For sources, see my previous works, first and foremost my book The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination, from which most of this article is derived.

    http://www.amazon.com/Rejection-Palestinian-Self-Determination-Jeremy-Hammond/dp/0557095697/

  • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

    Link
    to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples
    were located on the Temple Mount

    For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place
    in the world. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
    originates in the biblical narrative, as it is said to be the location of the
    binding of Isaac.[2] The Talmud, Judaism’s supreme canonical text, says that
    the foundation stone on the Temple Mount is the location from which the world
    was created.[3] In Samuel II 24:18-25, King David bought the bedrock for the
    Temple from Araunah the Jebusite. Subsequently, Solomon, David’s son, used the
    bedrock to build the First Temple.[4] Solomon’s Temple was eventually
    destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon in 586 BCE.

    Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish
    Temples werelocated on the Temple Mount

    For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world.

    Following the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple, many Jews were sent into exile. However, under the Persian
    King Cyrus, the Jews were allowed to return and began to rebuild the Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 516 BCE and expanded by King Herod in 19 BCE.
    In 70 CE, the Roman Empire, led by Emperor Titus, laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple. Jews have maintained an unbreakable connection to Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount since that time.

    Today, Jews follow a number of different customs in
    remembrance of their fallen Temple. When Jews pray, they pray toward Jerusalem. Within the daily liturgy, there are numerous calls for the
    rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. During the week, after meals, Jews recite a grace, which
    includes the recitation of Psalm 137 (“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem…”).[5] At
    the end of a wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass, which signifies the
    Jewish people’s continued mourning over the Temple’s destruction. In addition,
    many have the custom of leaving a wall in their home unfinished in remembrance
    of the destruction. All of these customs play a significant part in the Jewish
    connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated
    “represents the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of,
    cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple.”[6] In addition to the customs and ideology, the Jewish
    connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem is internationally recognized.[7]

    ISLAMIC LITERATURE AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT

    Classic Islamic literature also recognizes the
    existence of a Jewish Temple and its importance to Judaism. This makes Palestinian Temple Denial all the more puzzling.

    In Sura 17:1 of the Koran, the “Farthest Mosque” is
    called the al-masjid al-Aqsa. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn,[8] a well-respected Sunni
    exegesis of the Koran from the 15th and 16th centuries, notes that the
    “Farthest Mosque” is a reference to the Bayt al-Maqdis of Jerusalem.[9] In
    Hebrew, the Jewish Temple is often referred to as the Beyt Ha-Miqdash, nearly
    identical to the Arabic term. In the commentary of Abdullah Ibn Omar
    al-Baydawi, who authored several prominent theological works in the 13th
    century, the masjid is referred to as the Bayt al-Maqdis because during
    Muhammad’s time no mosque existed in Jerusalem.[10] Koranic historian and
    commentator, Abu Jafar Muhammad al-Tabari, who chronicled the seventh century
    Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, wrote that one day when Umar finished praying, he
    went to the place where “the Romans buried the Temple [bayt al-maqdis] at the
    time of the sons of Israel.”[11] In addition, eleventh century historian
    Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-Maqdisi and fourteenth century Iranian religious scholar
    Hamdallah al-Mustawfi acknowledged that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built on top of
    Solomon’s Temple.[12]

    This is a small sample of the Islamic literature
    attesting to the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Innumerable other writings from other faiths attest to this
    fact, as well.

    Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that
    the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount

    http://www.templeinstitute.org/1925-wakf-temple-mount-guide.pdf

    For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world.

    Following the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple, many Jews were sent into exile. However, under the Persian
    King Cyrus, the Jews were allowed to return and began to rebuild the Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 516 BCE and expanded by King Herod in 19 BCE.
    In 70 CE, the Roman Empire, led by Emperor Titus, laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple. Jews have maintained an unbreakable connection to Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount since that time.

    This is a small sample of the Islamic literature
    attesting to the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Innumerable other writings from other faiths attest to this fact,
    as well.

    Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that
    the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount

    http://www.templeinstitute.org/1925-wakf-temple-mount-guide.pdf

    Over a million Jewish people and their children
    were expelled from Arab countries and their assets confiscated

    It is interesting to note, that Jordan is a country
    that never existed in history before WWI and nobody is contesting its
    legitimacy or territorial sovereignty and control. The same powers that
    established 21 Arab States plus Jordan after WWI, established the State of Israel based on the Balfour
    Declaration and the San Remo Treaty of 1920 which was confirmed by the 1920
    Treaty of Sevres..

    On the other hand, Israel and its Jewish people have over 4,000 years of history.

    Many nations and people are questioning Israel’s control of its liberated territory. No one is mentioning that
    the Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children
    from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real
    estate, over 650,00 Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish
    people were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries
    confiscated from the Jewish people 120,400 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which
    is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.

    Transfer the Arab-Palestinians to the Jewish owned
    land in Arab countries is a good solution.

    Let the 21 Arab countries resettle the Arab
    Palestinians in the land they confiscated from the Jews which is 5-6 times the
    size of Israel (120,440 sq. km.). Provide them with funds they confiscated
    from the million Jewish people they expelled and let them build an economy,
    This will benefit both the Arab-Palestinians and the hosting countries, The
    other alternative is relocate the Arab-Palestinians to Jordan, (originally land
    allocated for the Jewish people) which is already 80% Arab-Palestinians, and
    give them funds to relocate and build an economy. This will solve the
    Arab-Palestinians refugee problem once and for all. It will also reduce
    hostility and strife in the region.

  • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

    Israel must be steadfast
    in protecting its rights and its people

    Many nations and people are questioning Israel’s control of its
    liberated territory.

    No one is mentioning that the
    Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children
    from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real
    estate. Many of the Jews ejected from Arab countries died while their forced
    departure from Arab countries, due to hardship, famine and starvation. 650,00
    Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people and their
    children were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries
    confiscated from the Jewish people 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which
    is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.

    The Jewish people and their
    children during the over 2,000 years living in Arab countries have suffered
    Pogroms, Libel claims, beheadings, beatings, false imprisonment and extreme
    hardship as a second class citizens. They had their businesses and homes
    pillaged, their wives and daughters raped, sold them as slaves, their houses of
    worship pillaged and burned, forced conversion to Islam and many were beheaded.

    Today over half of Israel’s population are Jews expelled from Arab countries
    and their children and grandchildren.

    The Audacity of the Arab
    Palestinians and the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish
    people in Palestine after they ejected over a million Jewish people and their
    children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,000 years and after they
    confiscated all their assets and Real estate 5-6 times the size of Israel
    (120,440 sq. km. – 75,000 sq. mi.), valued in the trillions of dollars. There
    was also Jewish property and land (totaling about 50,000 sq. km.) in Jordan, Gaza and
    across the Golan Heights under Syria’s control.

    Now the Arab nations are
    demanding more land and more compensation.

    The Arab countries have
    chased the million Jews and their children and now the want to chase them away
    again, from their own historical land.

    Israel must respond with extreme force to any violent
    demonstration and terror. Israel’s population must have peace and tranquility without
    intimidation by anyone.

    The Jewish people have suffered
    enough in the Diaspora for the past 2,500 years. It is time for the Jewish
    people to live as free people in their own land without violence and terror.

    It is time to consider that
    the only alternative is a population transfer of the Arab-Palestinians to the
    territories the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people and settle
    this dispute once and for all. Many Arab leaders had suggested these solutions
    over the years.

    YJ Draiman

    How many holidays do the Arabs-Muslims
    celebrate due to historical events in the land of ancient Israel
    and Jerusalem.

    The Jewish people celebrate most of their
    holidays and fast days in memory of Jerusalem
    and Israel.

    and the goal and aspiration to return to Israel
    and rebuild the Temple
    in Jerusalem
    – where it was before it was destroyed and desecrated by the enemies of the
    Jews. Many of the Jewish prayers for thousands of years recite the love of Israel
    and the Jewish aspirations to return to their ancestral land and bring back its
    glory and holiness.

    At Jewish weddings they break a glass in memory of Jerusalem
    and the aspiration to return and build the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

    YJ Draiman

    The Law of Return is for The Jews, the
    option to return to Greater Israel
    and The Arab-Palestinians to leave Greater Israel
    and return to the Arab countries they originated from. The Arab-Palestinians
    should move to the Million plus Jewish homes confiscated by the Arab countries
    from the expelled Jewish people and the 120,440 sq. km. of Real property the
    Arabs confiscated from the million plus Jews and their children expelled from
    Arab countries. That is the only viable alternative.

    Face it and stop hallucinating, once and for all. There will never be an Arab-Palestinian
    State in Greater Israel West of the Jordan River (Judea and Samaria).
    Jerusalem the United Eternal Capital of the Jewish people.

    YJ Draiman

    Sending thousands of rockets
    indiscriminately into civilian centers and tunneling into Israel
    to kill civilians and sending suicide bombers is not an obstacle to peace but
    building homes is? Are the U.S. & E.U. going on tour as a new comedy duo?

  • Chris. K Cook

    “Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and a recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. ”

    So no qualifications in History and a basic education in Political science and you think you are qualified to pass off this load of Judehass and Propaganda as ‘fact’?