The demand of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is perceived by many of the few people left in the Israeli peace camp to be simply another precondition for negotiations aimed at preventing negotiations. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have fallen into Netanyahu's trap and rather than understanding it is a trap have helped to further deepen the Israeli narrative that there is no Palestinian partner for peace.
Gershon Baskin is the Israeli Co-Director and founder of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) - a joint Israeli-Palestinian public policy think he founded in 1988.
Dr. Baskin has published several books in the Hebrew, English and Arabic press on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beginning with the Histadrut Prize for Peace in 1996, he has received many international awards for his work.
The Palestinians are not entirely at fault for failing to properly understand what is being demanded. And to a large extent the Israeli demand is indeed a quite transparent attempt to pre-emptively remove the most contentious issue on the negotiating agenda - the refugee problem. Former Israeli chief negotiator and Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, issued a similar demand to the Palestinians prior to the Annapolis summit in November 2007. One of the reasons why there was no joint statement (other than the one read by President Bush) was Livni's demand to the Palestinians that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The question of the Jewishness of Israel is one that is quite complex and misunderstood. By calling Israel a "Jewish State" as it is referred to in Israel's Declaration of Independence and in UN Resolution 181 which partitioned Palestine into two states "one Jew and one Arab" does not define if Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people or a state with a state religion which defines its essence. Netanyahu has, on the other hand, used the expression "the state of the Jewish people" or even "the nation-state of the Jewish people".
Zionism, from its outset, was a secular revolution against the limitations of defining Jewish people in solely religious terms. Under the shadow of emerging national movements all over Europe following the emancipation brought on by the French Revolution, young Jewish intellectuals found that they were excluded from the national movements of the countries where they lived. Seeking to be part of the new trend of organizing identities based on historical links to particular territories Zionism was born to give expression to Jews who also wanted a sense of belonging and national pride. Imbued with a strong sense that Jews had been victims for too long to the whims of others, they decided to take their fate into their own hands and to determine their future by themselves, rather than having others continue to write their history.
Jews turned inwards to their heritage and their roots which they found in the Holy Scriptures and understood that it was time to return to their historic homeland. The Zionist movement then sought to provide a culture and a narrative based on secular nationalism and emancipation from religious rituals, traditions and law. The Zionist movement as such, with the exception of the later born and minority stream of religious Zionism defined the Jews as a nation, a people, a culture and a heritage stating that just as France is French, Israel is Jewish.
Since the birth of the State of Israel, and as expressed in Israel's Declaration of Independence, the founders of the State and all of the Government of Israel since have never stated either a desire or a political plan to make Israel a unitary national or religious state for Jews only. This is one of the arguments used by the Palestinians to negate the Israeli demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or as the nation state of the Jewish people. Mr. Netanyahu has never suggested or even dreamed of the way to deny 20% of Israel's citizens their rights as citizens within the State. With the exception of small extremist parties, such as Kahana's Kach party which was made illegal under Israel law, Zionist parties have come to terms with a Palestinian minority in Israel. Israelis politics has not come to terms with defining the Palestinian citizens in Israel as a "national minority" but nonetheless, there is not even the slightest intention of exploiting a possible Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in order to expel the Palestinian citizens of Israel. If Palestinians wish to argue against recognizing Israel as a state of the Jewish people or as a Jewish state, the claim of a "solely Jewish state" is the weakest argument and has no real basis in reality.
Both Israelis and Palestinians feel that there is no real partner for peace on the other side. The Palestinian election of Hamas and the continued bombardment of Israel from Gaza following the Israeli disengagement signaled to the Israeli public that the Palestinians are not interested in living in peace with Israel. Palestinian understanding of the contrary is not translated into a clear message that ordinary Israelis understand. Everyday Israelis are shown by the media and by various right-wing NGO's "evidence" that Palestinians are not willing to live in peace with Israel. Whether it be clips from Hamas television in Gaza, or problematic excerpts from Palestinian textbooks, or the latest Israeli narrative that once again the Israeli Prime Minister (Olmert this time) offered President Abbas 100% of the territory, Muslim sovereignty over al-Haram al Sharif and even recognition of the principle of the right of return (and a limited number of returnees), Abbas, according to the Israelis, rejected the offer and didn't even bother to respond by making a counter offer or explaining why he rejected such a "generous offer". It is no wonder that there is no peace camp in Israel! (All of the same kind of claims could be made that "prove" to the Palestinians that Israel is also not a partner - whether it be the war in the Lebanon, the Gaza war, the building of settlements, the wall, arrests and imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians, etc. etc.).
Objectively speaking there are no real reasons why Palestinians and Israelis should trust each other. They have systematically worked overtime to earn the lack of mutual trust. This is why seemingly non-essential demands, such as recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland have become so essential. The essence of the Israeli demand is centered on the refugee issue. It is quite true that the major sense of an existential threat from Palestinians today is not the qassam rockets or even suicide bombers, but the "demographic bomb" best expressed by the Palestinian right of return. Nothing would endanger the Jewishness of Israel more than the possibility of a Palestinian majority or even a significantly larger Palestinian minority. That is why Ariel Sharon acted so incongruously regarding Gaza from everything that he had done previously. That is also what motivated Olmert to go beyond Barak at Taba. But, from the Israeli perspective the key to any agreement with the Palestinians is reaching an agreement that the right of return will be implemented in the Palestinian state, and not in Israel and that the peace deal will be final and will end all claims forever.
There will be no permanent status agreement at any time in the foreseeable future without this principle being implemented. In practical terms the Palestinians already accepted (albeit reluctantly) Israel as a Jewish State. The Palestinian nation poet Mahmoud Darwish put it into the Palestinian Declaration of Independence which President Yasser Arafat read at the Palestinian National Council meeting in Algiers in November 1988. Palestinian leaders, with the exception of Sari Nusseibeh, have never said in public what they often say in private, that they are aware that there will be no real return of refugees to Israel. Palestinian leaders continue to lie to their people in public speeches and in writing that they should "hold onto their keys" and that they will return to their homes that they left in Jaffa, Ramle, Lod and other places. Palestinians have not dealt with the fact that their text books present maps that show these cities as part of Palestine and not part of Israel. What is the reader supposed to understand from this? What are the real Palestinian intentions?
I believe that the Palestinian leadership recognizes that there will not be a real return of refugees to Palestine. I believe that a majority of Palestinians know this as well. But in their heart of hearts they have not yet come to terms with this. It must be understood that there is a fundamental clash and contradiction between the acceptance of the "two-states for two-people" solution to the conflict and the right of return. It is legitimate to reject the two state solution because of this and I recognize that most of the "one-staters" support that position because of their intellectual integrity in this regard. It is not legitimate, in my mind, to support the two-state solution and the right of return. This lacks intellectual integrity.
Palestinians did get the short end of the stick. They wanted 100% of Palestine, they were offered less than 50% in 1949 and today they are being asked to settle for 22%. Palestinians are not only victims in this reality - they share part of the responsibility for their fate as well. Israel too shares a significant part of the responsibility for the plight and suffering of the Palestinians and both sides will have to confront and acknowledge their respective responsibilities.
Palestinian refugees are the only refugees in the world who enjoy a multi-generational status by international law. They are the only refugees who enjoy a dedicated UN body to look after their needs. Why, after the establishment of the Palestinian Authority did UNRWA have to continue to function in the territories under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Why do these refugees need their own school systems or health system separate from the system established and run by the Palestinian Authority? Why hasn't the Palestinian Authority and the international community worked to integrate these Palestinians into the fabric of normal Palestinian authority. One of every two Palestinians in the occupied territories is defined as a refugee. I can understand why the individual refugee seeks to maintain his or her refugee status - it awards benefits - housing support, loans, food assistance, education, health, etc. But what is the real justification for keeping this separate system alive? Is it not to sustain the conflict and to keep the myth alive that they will one day "go home"?
Comments
"I can understand why the individual refugee seeks to maintain his or her refugee status - it awards benefits - housing support, loans, food assistance, education, health, etc"
Is it not possible that Palestinian refugees "imbued with a strong sense that Palestinians have been victims for too long of the whims of others," have "decided to take their fate into their own hands and to determine their future for themselves, rather than having others continue to write their history."
In other words, Palestinians like Israeli Jews, are human. They turn to international law, UN Resolution 194, as the referent for their political rights, and rights are inalienable, unless you are not "human" in the political sense. Which is where Basken ends up whether he recognizes it or not.
There is no point in demonizing Palestinian refugees, because they are a major problem for Israel as long as the state cannot even acknowledge that its creation came from, perhaps could not come from as Benny Morris argues, the cleansing of Palestine of Palestinians.
Basken is still looking for Palestinians to solve Israel's problems of establishing itself through ethnic cleansing. You are more likely to get to the place where fewer refugees will want to physically return to Israel if Israel can acknowledge the price Palestinians paid for a Jewish state than if you keep denying historical reality.
It is really a shame that Baskin knows so little about Jewish history and
culture regarding the founding of Israel. As a member of a "peace
organization" in Israel,
it is not surprising, but he could be so much more effective if he did.
The founding of Israel
dates back to three traditions in Judaism. One is the desire to return and
reestablish the temple after the Diaspora. The second is the renewal and
strengthening of that desire during the nineteenth century, which arose from
the pogroms and other legally sanctioned abuse of Jewish citizens of many
countries. There emerged a strong desire to have a place where Jewish people
could safely live and pursue their religion. The third tradition emerged after
the Holocaust. It became clear that, without a state of their own Jews would be
considered a "problem" in the countries in which they lived.
The Jewish question or Jewish problem in Germany seemingly had no solution
until Hitler devised one. After he began implementing the Holocaust no country
in the world would accept, Jews even to save their lives. Even, or perhaps
especially, liberal cultures in the US
and Britain refused to
accept Jewish refugees or even allow them to emigrate to the Middle
East or elsewhere. After WWII, it was obvious that Jews needed a
country and refuge of their own or the world would be dealing with other
Holocausts. With the emergence of nuclear weapons, this latter prospect was
viewed with concern. Hence, Israel
was founded. Guilt had a part in it, but only a small part.
Without Israel
today there is a reasonable probability that the "Jewish Problem"
would reemerge. The Germans forced neighboring countries to give up their Jews
for slaughter and the Arabs applauded that action and supported Nazi genocide,
even before Israel
was founded. They would almost certainly support such efforts again and would
impose them themselves if the situation arose. Even now, the historical record
(not the journalistic record) shows that the Arab regimes treated their
former Jewish populations far worse than the Israelis treated the Palestinians.
Perhaps Jews displaced from Arab countries should also be given a right of return.
Those three traditions have resulted in Israel being Jewish as an
existential issue for Jews. It is just not an existential issue for any Arabs
because other options do exist for them if they need to be refugees.
Palestinians may not want to resettle in other countries, Arab countries may
not want them to, and many NGO's have careers and business models built around
providing services to Palestinians. However, those are still matters of choice
and the threat to Palestinians facing mass slaughter with no place to go
is, except for the heated imaginations of some progressive writers and those
opposed to Israel for religious or other reasons, not realistic.
Given the attitude of Israel's neighbors, the attitude of Palestinians (they
refuse, even today, to have their children hear about the Holocaust and deny
its existence), the attitude of Islamic leaders, the attitude of the UN and the
attitude of the World's media, the right of return is equivalent to
annihilation for many Israelis. While many around the world endorse this
annihilation, indeed are working for it, it is not something Israelis or Jews
could accept.
It is from realizing the importance of a Jewish homeland to the Jewish
people that negotiations for peace must begin. A peace, to be meaningful,
should be stable enough to last. A quick fix, and attitude of let it last until
the ink dries, or the international applause stops, will not ensure against a
major regional instability with international implications.
What Baskin and others always seems to avoid is the mutual give and
take needed to ensure this peace. Most Arab, European and American commentators
speak of concessions from Israel
and the West before talks can begin. This is a path worn deep from previous
travel. The Palestinians and the Arabs have the resources and ability to make
joint Israeli-Arab specific concessions that can get peace moving. Arabs
agreeing to consider talks only after tangible Israeli concessions or agreeing
to "think about" long-term peace as a concession is yesterday’s news
and should not be a focus of meaningful negotiations.
What breathtaking arrogance.
One presumes from your position that if DNA tests showed that the gypsies were the descendants of the Canaanites, you would remove both Palestinians and Israelis to give the Romany a homeland.... given that they remain a 'problem' in many countries.
No religion has a right to land. No race has a right to land simply because a few of their ancestors lived their for a time a few thousand years ago.
Those who follow the Jewish religion have lived and continue to live in various countries around the world, including my ancestors although thankfully the most recent one lapsed in the 1880'sand sensibly married a Scot, and as citizens of those countries have no need for another homeland. If they think they do then they should be in Israel, or what is left of it when the Palestinians finally get the justice they deserve.
The Zionist movement began long before Hitler. Hitler merely provided an excuse and impetus.
Israel can claim legitimacy only on the grounds claimed by other historically recent colonisers and that means a return to mandated borders, end of the occupation, removal of all settlements on Palestinian land (except any negotiated) and two separate states as the UN intended.
Otherwise it must do what all other colonisers have had to do... either leave as the British did and as the white South Africans are doing and find homes elsewhere, or, create one state with equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion.
The indigenous people of the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were never seen as 'equal' and equally responsible partners in their wars against colonisation. Why are the Palestinians singled out? Israel was established on someone's else's country.... Palestine, belonging to the Palestinians. Since that enforced dispossession and colonisation Israel has continued to occupy and colonise Palestine and to keep the Palestinian people, the indigenous people of both Israel and Palestine, imprisoned and subjugated.
There would be outrage if this had been done by any other colonising power and rightly so. How can the Palestinians who are supposedly Israeli citizens, agree to a religious definition for their State when it immediately makes them second-class citizens if citizens at all? If the United States had defined itself by religion, ditto for other colonisers, then only Christian Americans would be full citizens. Ridiculous. a religiously defined state is racist. It is also backward. It has no place in a modern, enlightened world.
The Palestinians are an abused and occupied people in their own land. Until Israel admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation as other historically recent colonisers have had to do, and makes redress, and either goes back to UN mandated borders and returns what remains of Palestine to its rightful owners, or, creates one state with equal rights for all as the other recent colonisers have done then the Palestinians, cannot and should not agree to anything.
Israel is the coloniser and occupier and bears full responsibility for this situation. If anyone had demanded that Australian Aborigines take responsibility in equal share with their colonisers, or American Indians, it would have been seen as ludicrous as it clearly is.
"Why are the Palestinians singled out? Israel was established on someone's else's country.... Palestine, belonging to the Palestinians."
"Palestine" was never a "country." If it was, then tell me: who was it's president? It's prime minister? It's head of state? In fact, tt was an Ottoman province, followed by a British mandate, was occupied by Egypt and Jordan, was occupied by Israel, and now the "Palestinian Authority" exercises the writ over parts of the 22%. Get your facts right, or people won't listen to your arguments.
Palestine" was never a "country." If it was, then tell me: who was it's president? It's prime minister? It's head of state? In fact, it was an Ottoman province, followed by a British mandate, was occupied by Egypt and Jordan, was occupied by Israel,
You are confusing country and nation-state.
Germany did not have a president or prime minister or head of State at the turn of the last century but there was clearly a German people and a German country.
India did not have a president or prime minister or head of State until independence from the British. But there was clearly an Indian people and an Indian country.
Are you suggesting that there was no country called Britain when the Romans invaded and occupied simply because they did not have a president or head of State? What rot.
The Palestinians are the indigenous people of a country which has been called Palestine for millenia. There is no difference between them and Aboriginal people who are the indigenous people of a country which is now called Australia but where they lived before and after occupation and colonisation.
If there were no country called Palestine then why is it that the UN specifically states that a country called Palestine would be partitioned to allow the creation of a new State?
What fantasy Israelis and their supporters believe. Just because you live under occupation does not make you less of a country.
"Palestine" was never a "country."
Palestine under the Ottomans was just as much or just as little a country as Israel was.
Quite right. Of course Palestine was a country. It was a country when the Romans were there. It may not have been a nation state but then neither was Germany until the beginning of last century. Does that mean there was no Germany as a country? I don't think so. Yet another double standard for Palestine.
Rosross really has to learn some complex history.
The land held by the proto-Israelis in Nov. 1947 had all been voluntarily sold to them by Arabs. Some of those Arabs were absentee landlords (in which case Rosross can blame Ottoman social structure, but not the proto-Israelis); some of those Arabs were local fellahin; but every sale was voluntary, and a lot of land was sold. On this, please read Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948 (University of California Press, 2007).
Then, immediately following the UN Partition Resolution, the proto-Israelis were attacked. It was a civil war--like the civil war that resulted from Partition in India (into India and Pakistan), but much smaller. But from Nov. 1947 until April 1948 the Arabs were on the offensive, the proto-Israelis on the defensive. This means the Palestinian Arabs were not hapless or helpless victims of Israeli aggression. This is true no matter what bien-pensant leftists would like to think now about what happened, in order to demonstrate their "anti-colonial" credentials to themselves. On this, please read Benny Morris, "1948". The British High Commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham (a very experienced military man), informed the British govt in early April 1948 that the Arabs were decisively winning.
Well, the Arabs, who had started the fighting, and did the first killling (again, read Morris), and were on the offensive for the first five months of the war, eventually lost the war. And there were consequences to losing, including the loss of more land to the proto-Israelis. This would not have happened without the war, which the Arabs started.
The UN Resolution of Nov. 1947 already established two states in the old Mandate, one primarily for Jews, one primarily for Arabs. The first was established; the second never had a chance because of the actions of Egypt and Jordan (not Israel). From 1948 until 1967 Jordan occupied the West Bank and officially incorporated it legally into Jordan. No one objected--no one. Take a look at pre-1967 maps and you'll see this. Egypt took over Gaza. No one objected--no one.
The basic facts are these: in order for the Israelis to recognize a Palestinian state would require no revision of Zionism. But for the Palestinians to recognize Israel would require an absolutely fundamental revision of their ideology. Even after 60 years, they have refused to do this. These simple facts show were the main block to "peace" is.
This is a failure of Palestinian political leadership, which refuses to tell the truth to its own people. It prefers to stay in power by feeding them on lies and hatred, as the above article points out.
Of course, these points will be irrelevant to those extreme leftists and radical reactionary Islamists (what an alliance!) who want Israel to cease to exist, the former because it uses a "colonial" paradigm, the latter because it wants all Muslim land Judenrein (read the Hamas Charter).
But I'm talking about the situation in the real world, and the actual decisions that people with real responsibility are faced with.
Ethan's reply is well said and very worth including. I believe people who are aware of the facts should continue to press verificable information on all the cultural relativists in the egoistic mainstream media and academia. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion, let alone come to agreement, if one party to the discussion is free to make up their own narrative, assert information they neither have nor could have had, and make value judgements that are unsupportable or contradicted by verifiable information.
The political correctness arising from various cultural relativistic strains of academic debate has established a nihilistic culture in the media and academia which makes conflict resolution very difficult. Indeed, it seems the only way conflict is resolved is via the courts or in the streets.
It used to be that asserting false information had serious consequences but that has not been the case for over a generation (i.e. one persons facts are anothers falsehoods , truth in the eyes of the beholder etc) It is ironic that in an age when it has never been easier to separate truth from distortions so many educated people willfully choose to accept only that which supports their emotional prejudices.
Keep up the good work Ethan II, you aren't alone and the battle isn't over.
This is a good description of Zionism:
Ethan needs to read some history.
Fact: There was a land called Palestine whose inhabitants were mainly Musim but with small Christian and Jewish Palestinians. The United Nations, against the will of the majority of the people living in Palestine (therefore immoral and probably illegally) partitioned the country to allow a new state to be created, Israel.
Fact: As Israeli historians now attest, in order to create the State of Israel, Palestinians were killed and driven out by force. This is no different to the colonisation of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Fact: The Palestinians, like the American and Canadian Indians, New Zealand Maoris and Australian Aborigines, fought back against the invaders and colonisers with the help of some allies. Like the other indigenous peoples they lost. Israel since then has maintained a brutal occupation and has continued to dispossess and colonise more of Palestine in contravention of international law and UN resolutions.
Fact: The colonisers of America, Canada, NZ and Australia ultimately admitted to the wrongs inherent in their foundation and gave equal rights to all citizens including their indigenous peoples. Israel has refused to do this, apart from a minority who remained in the part of Palestine which became Israel. The remainder of the indigenous Palestinians are imprisoned by the coloniser, Israel, and refused either freedom in what remained of their land after enforced partition, or equal rights as citizens in one State as the other historically recent colonisers have done.
Fact: None of the other colonisers have ever claimed that their subjugated and colonised indigenous people had the same responsibility to act. Instead, they recognised that as the coloniser and as the party with all the power, they had to act to redress wrongs.
Fact: None of the other colonisers ever demanded that their indigenous people accept their 'right' to colonise and take their land. Israel demands this of the Palestinians, completely ignoring that Israel exists on Palestinian land, that Israelis live where they do because they dispossessed Palestinians or have herded them into concentration camps like Gaza so they can settle in Palestinian homes on Palestinian land.
Fact: During the foundation of Israel thousands of Palestinians villages were destroyed. Israel, like all other colonisers, is built on the dispossession and slaughter of the indigenous people.
Until Israel recognises that it is a coloniser and that it will never have legitimacy until it admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and returns to the only part of Palestine it could ever possibly claim legally .... that of partition... there will not be peace for anyone and Israel will continue to corrode from within. It is not possible to win a war of occupation in the modern age. The Palestinians are not going away. Israel cannot kill them all nor force them out. Already the Palestinians are outbreeding Israelis and willl continue to do so. Trauma actually increases fertility.... it is nature's way of ensuring survival.
There are only two outcomes. Either a Jewish State on the original mandate (ultimately doomed to fail because such racist States have no place in the modern world) which could last for 50 years, or, the most likely outcome given Israel's intransigence, eventually, one State with equal rights for all, as human rights and international law demands.
Unfortunately this will mean the end of Israel because like the whites in South Africa, the Israelis have treated their indigenous people so appallingly and created such hatred, there will be no place for them in the new nation and, like the white south africans, they will all gradually leave. The majority of those living in the new State will no doubt choose to return it to its original name, Palestine and Israel will go down in history as one of the most brutal of colonisations and occupations and one of the greatest failures.
There is possibly only one other tragic outcome if Israelis do not see sense and that is a war started by Israel, as they all have been, where the region is decimated.
I see Rosross isn't going to take my advice and actually do some reading and learn the complex history.
Repeat: the Israelis bought every single piece of land they had before Nov. 1947 from willing Palestinian Arab sellers. The rest came from a war in which they were the ones attacked, a war they almost lost, but which they eventually one.
Historical analogies are always dicey, but I propose that a far more recent one than Rosross's American Indians, and a far more illuminating and relevant one to what has occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine, is what occurred in the former British India in the same years under discussion, 1947-1948.
.
Rosross seems outraged that Partition of the Mandate occurred with the majority of the population being unwilling. Well, the Partition of India also occurred with the majority of Indians in 1947/1948--namely the Hindus, led by Ghandi--being unwilling. But in the same year as the Partition of the Mandate, the Partition of India happened too, because of the push of a minority, namely the Muslims.
The result was a tragedy on a scale that absolutely dwarfed what happened in the Palestine Mandate: 7 million Hindu refugees from Pakistan, a country which has now been completely "purified" by force all Hindus. of those displaced, about 800,000 *died* by Muslim violence. By contrast, Israeli dead in 1947-1948 were about 7,000 (about 1% of the total Jewish population), and Palestinian casualties around 15,000. Meanwhile 20% of the Israeli population is Palestinian Arab (as opposed to 0% of the Pakistani population being Hindu). And in Pakistan, Islam rules in a way inconceivable for Judaism in Israel. Nevertheless, while Pakistan has its own severe problems, no one (either on the Rosross's extreme left, or among the reactionary Islamists) questions its legitimacy as a state, or even Pakistan's legitimacy as a Muslim state (it's official name is the *Islamic* Republic of Pakistan).
There were also about 7 million Muslims who fled India, and many of them died too. General Musharraf the recent leader of Pakistan was himself actually born in Delhi, and is the child of forced refugees. Two Indian Prime Ministers were men actually born in what became Pakistan, and were refugees or the children of refugees. The total number of refugees created by the Partition of India was 20 times that created by the Partition of the Palestine Mandate. The numbers killed during the Partition violence was fifty times higher.
The partition of India on religious grounds was and remains a disaster. However, not as much of a disaster as the partition of Palestine to allow colonisation by Europeans. As others have said, the true comparison is South Africa, where European colonists dispossessed and then enslaved, occupied and colonised the indigenous peoples. At least in India the colonists left.
Israel can only be compared to other historically recent colonisers and the Palestinians to the indigenous people of their land, just like the American Indians, Australian Aborigines etc.
Fact: People called palestinians lived in a land called Palestine which was invaded by colonists to create Israel.
Fact: people called Aborigines lived in a land called many things by the indigenous people which was invaded by colonists to create Australia.
Fact: a people called maori lived in a land which was invaded by colonists to create New Zealand.
Should I go on with Canada, the US and other nations which were created on the land of others? Would you like to explain to me how the people living in Australia, US, Canada, NZ, South Africa at the time the new state was created are indigenous and yet Palestinians are not?
Why should the people of Palestine be treated differently to all other colonised, occupied and dispossessed peoples?
And I would add, if Jews have a right to land in this part of the world, because some of their ancestors spent time there as nomads a few thousand years ago.... can I take it that you believe the Mexicans have a right to settle (as they are) in California and the southern United States and to demand that land be returned to Mexico because a few hundred years ago it belonged to mexico and was taken by the Americans?
Do the Italians have a right to claim London and England because their ancestors once invaded, occupied and settled that land just as the Hebrews, if one believes the Bible, invaded, occupied and settled Canaan which is now Palestine?
Do the Italians have the right to claim back Istanbul which they founded as Constantinople?
Do the Romanies, who remain stateless, have a right to whichever part of India their ancestors once inhabited?
Do the Kurds have a right to take slabs of Iran, Iraq and Turkey to recreate their state no matter how much suffering, dispossession and war is entailed?
Of course not. the foundation of Israel was an arrogant european folly.
Do you not see how ludicrous it is to try to claim that just because the followers of a particular religion spent time living somewhere a few thousand years ago they have any current legitimacy in regard to the land?
Israel could make a case I am sure, like all historically recent colonisers for the land given at partition, the original mandate, but no more. It would be wise to do so because the apartheid state of Israel as it exists is just as doomed as the apartheid state of South Africa was.
There were no Israelis before 1947. The Zionists may have bought every bit of land they owned prior to this date but they stole every bit of it they hold since, beyond the original partition mandate. Although that is morally wrong and legally questionable given that the partition was imposed upon the country of Palestine and its people.
As I have said before, I think the partition of India was also immoral, illegal and an absolute disaster. Ditto for the partition of Palestine.
The difference is, the colonists left India and have remained as occupiers and colonisers in Palestine.
Rosross writes (Sept. 9 at 3:02): "Of course Palestine was a country. It was a country when the Romans were there."
Except it was called Judaea and its population were Jews.
The Romans later renamed the province "Palestine" to insult the Jews, since it referred to the Philistines (who themselves had been conquerors from Europe in the Bronze Age) and who no longer existed. There was a large Jewish diaspora created by the rebellions of the 60s and 130s A.D., but the population of "Palestine" was still predominantly Jewish.
As for "Palestine" under the Ottomans and just after, the original meaning and employment of the term "Nakbah" (catastrophe) by Arabs in the Mandate was in reference not to the events of 1947-1948 but to the events of 1919-1920: when the Mandate was split off from southern Syria and "Palestine" was thus created. Before that, the Arabs thought of themselves as all Syrian Arabs. What was being objected to by Arabs in 1920 was the split created by the Europeans, which created a Palestinian Arab polity separate from Syria, which they did not want, as it created a Palestinian Jewish one.
(This doesn't mean there isn't a "Palestinian Arab people *now*; but I'm talking about the self-conceptions that historically existed before 1920.)
The God of the Canaanites was Pales. The name Palestine comes from Pales. Canaan was an Egyptian colony. Various tribes lived in Canaan including eventually some who followed the Jewish religion. The Biblical story is that the Hebrews conquered, occupied and colonised Canaan but the archeological evidence is not there for that. Nor does it exist for any substantial historical Israel.
However, beyond Canaan it was called Palestine. The Hebrews may well have had tribal settlements and areas which they named and which were recorded in the Bible but again, archeology has found little evidence to substantiate the Biblical stories.
More to the point Ethan, even if one were to accept that before Palestine there was a Judea then you must accept that before Judea there was Canaan. Judea then has no more legitimacy than Palestine does in your view.
No doubt, as some studies already suggest, DNA testing would show that the Palestinians and possibly any Jews who were Palestinian before Israel was established, are actually the descendants of the Canaanites.
On your argument then very few of today's Israelis, who are of European origin and who were converted to Judaism would have any connection at all with the land of Palestine/Canaan/Judea.
As I said, "Rosross writes (Sept. 9 at 3:02): 'Of course Palestine was a country. It was a country when the Romans were there.' Except it was called Judaea and its population were Jews."
I guess Rosross's argument is that the the "real Jews" of the Bible died out and that current Jews in Israel are not genetic "Jews" but genetic Europeans. One's jaw drops. (a) No one believes this except radical Palestinians and some people in the fever swamps of the left, and (b) it ignores the fact that half the Jewish population of Israel comes from the Middle East, not Europe--they were driven out by Arab Muslim governments between
As for the Philistines, the easy way for Rosross to enlighten himself about them is to google wikipedia "Philistines"; ditto for the origin of the term "Palestine". Wiki seems about his level.
Ethan, verbal abuse diminishes your argument, it does not strengthen it.
My argument is that any real Jews from Biblical times, who, as nomads, spent some time living in what became Palestine, had absolutely no right to the land thousands of years on. No more so than any of the other nomadic tribes which peopled Canaan and then Palestine.
Israel was established by European Jews and while, in later years, as Israel tried to bulk up its numbers by taking Jews from anywhere and everywhere, including Africa and many from America, the historical evidence is that most Israelis are not of Middle Eastern descent. and even if they were it gives them no rights.
If one were to follow your argument then the 'true home' of those who are members of the Jewish religion is either Iraq (the old Mesopotamia and Sumeria) from which the Hebrews originally came, or Egypt, the country to which they went and where the Jewish religion was founded.
Even Israeli historians admit there is no archeological evidence for the 'State of Israel' as talked about in the Bible. And even if there were, it still gives no rights. The Italians founded London... does that mean they have a right to it? They founded Istanbul, and Bombay and Calcutta. Do they have rights to those cities? Of course not.
One argument is that Palestine came from Philistines but there are other arguments that it came from the God of the Canaanites, Pales, which is far more likely. Not that it matters where it came from.
The Egyptians talked about Palestia as well as Canaan, which was a colony, so no doubt, both names applied to the land which became Palestine.
Your argument is that because some nomadic tribes which followed the Jewish religion lived in Palestine for a time a few thousand years ago they have a right to the land. It is ludicrous. Humanity is said to have originated in Africa... by your argument each and every one of us has a right to the land in Africa! Australian Aborigines are now believed to have migrated from India. Does that mean they have a right to land in India!
Romanies, who are stateless, are believed to have originated in either Egypt or India. Does that mean you believe the United nations should partition part of Egypt or India to allow them to colonise and create a homeland? No matter the dispossession and destruction that entails?
If not, and I bet you don't, then why not? That is the farcical foundation of your argument for the creation of Israel.
You can argue Israel on only one count. It is a historically recent coloniser and therefore one accepts its existence. But only if the Palestinians are either full and equal citizens of one state, or, if Israelis return to the original mandated land and give the Palestinians back what remains of their country.
The Israelis have no more right to Palestine than the English settlers had to the US, Canada, Australia or NZ and to gain any legitimacy it must admit to that, make redress and end the occupation.... allowing either two indpendent states or one state for all.
Z
Another point: the expulsion and flight of Middle Eastern (Mizrahi) Jews from Arab and Muslim lands resulted in a miserable and penniless refugee population, robbed of all possessions, of about 850,000. This is l00,000 *more* people than became refugees in the Palestinian Nakbah. They are classified as refugees by the UN. Rosross, some Arab is enjoying the property of these people as I write. It is *never* an issue.
In other words, there is another parallel here with the Partition of India: what occurred was an exchange of populations, as in the refugees who fled or were expelled from Pakistan to India and vice versa. To be sure, the Israelis treated their (larger) refugee population better than the Arabs have treated their (smaller) refugee population. That is too bad, but it doesn't change the fact that there was not merely a flight or in some cases an expulsion of Palestinian Arabs in 1948. There was also a larger flight or expulsion of Middle Eastern Jews from Arab/Muslim lands.
This is never talked about either in the fever swamps of the extreme left where Rosross lives, or by the Islamists, and sometimes on Opendemocr it is actually denied. But when one sees the whole board, one's image of what occurred should also change, and the similarities with the Partition of India become even more striking (except the scale of what happened in India was 20 times larger, and the intensity of violence and deaths in 1947-1948 was 50 times worse).
On the Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from Arab/Muslim lands, see now Jewish refugees from Arab Countries (2007) by Irwin Cutler (former Liberal Justice Minister of Canada; lawyer for Nelson Mandela.)
I'm not so sure of this. Allegedly, this intention was also not there in 1948, but we all know what happened. It is more precise to say that there is not a sign of this intention. After all, without the expulsion of Israeli Palestinians Jews might very well find themselves a minority in Israel in one or two centuries.
There are other signs though, that indicate that Zionists aim at some kind of "transfer" (a euphemism for expulsion). One contribution on an OD forum was this:
In other words: some Zionists want to solve Zionism's "demographic" problem (to preserve a Jewish majority in the "Jewish state" for all time), not by "transferring" Israeli Palestinians out of Israel, but by only transferring their citizenship-rights out of Israel. This means that the Israeli Palestinians will lose rights in Israel. (for a more thorough analysis I recommend Jonathan Cook's "Blood and Religion")
If the Palestinian leadership recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, Zionist hawks will use this recognition to push for "citizenship transfer", and dovish Zionist might very well percieve this recognition as a sufficient legitimisation of "citizenship transfer". After all, after 1948 Zionist doves also accepted the expulsion of the Palestinians as legitimised.
The general pattern here is that Zionist hawks establish a fact and Zionist doves accept it as legitimate. This has happened many times in Israel, and is likely to happen again.
Still pumping out the "exchange" nonsense professor? If people were expelled or otherwise forced out from their legal domicile then they have a case against that government whether it is Israel or Morrocco (which is in the western part of North Africa,not the Middle East by the way!). It is utterly repugnant and completely unacceptable to call it an exchange. And you have been taken to task for distorting and misrepresenting the figures involved. That is not the same as denial.
There is no comparison between the folly of the partition of India and the creation of Israel. Pakistan was an absurd and disastrous project which continues to haunt the descendants of the people concerned. However, it was not the displacement of a native population in order to accomodate foreign colonisers. If you want to make a comparison then you should turn to apartheid South Africa.
I have to ask: Do you think you strengthen your arguments by using such insulting and dismissive terms as swamp fevers of the left or bien pensant leftists? All you are demonstrating with such terms is the need to de-legitimise your opponents because your own arguments are so weak.
Big C has previously purported not to know the balance in numbers between how many Jews were expelled by Muslim and Arab govts and became refugees, and how many voluntarily became penniless and miserable refugees living in displaced persons camps in order to participate voluntarily in the Zionist colonial project. Big C has emphatically said he does not know what the balance is, while indicating he believes the number of the latter group is large.
The UN officially classified these Jews as refugees. A major difference between these Middle Eastern Jews and the Palestinians of the Nakbah is that the Middle Eastern Jews didn't attack their neighbors first. To argue that many of these people were actually voluntary immigrants, seduced or manipulated by evil Zionists--that is indeed what I mean by living in the "fever swamp."
It's the same left-wing fever swamp from which Rosross is arguing that modern Israelis are not genetically the same as the ancient Jews of Judaea, but are secretly Europeans (disregarding that half the Israeli Jewish population--the Mizrahis--are refugees from the Middle East).
The similarities between the events in the Palestine Mandate in 1947-1948 and the events in India in 1947-1948 are clear. (And one has to start in the former case from the realization that the original land held by Jews pre-1947 was all bought from voluntary Arab sellers--that's hardly an example of "conquest". Then these proto-Israelis were attacked, and almost defeated. Big C blames them for winning a war they did not start.)
Rosross writes today at 7:16:
"If there were no country called Palestine then why is it that the UN specifically states that a country called Palestine would be partitioned to allow the creation of a new State?"
Nothing reveals Rosross's historical ignorance more.
What the UN voted to do was *not* to split a "country called Palestine" to allow a new Jewish state. What it did was to split in two the Palestine Mandate, which was not a country but an artificial creation created by the League of Nations in 1921--an artificial creation under British control, an action which at the time was called the Nakbah (catastrophe) by Arabs in the region precisely because it meant the separation of this region from SYRIA of which it was traditionally a part. That is, Arabs in the region that became the Mandate at that time thought of themselves as (southern) Syrians.
The UN Declaration of 1947 split the artificial creation called the Palestine Mandate, created in 1921, into two states, an independent state where the Jewish population of the Mandate lived, and an independent state where the Arab population of the Mandate lived.
What strangled the Arab state in the Mandate at birth was not the war of 1947-1948, where the Arabs attacked the Jews first, and at first were winning, but were eventually defeated, allowing the predominantly Jewish state to survive: An Arab state in the former Mandate could still have emerged from that. But what happened was the Jordanian conquest and annexation of the West Bank, and the Egyptian conquest annexation of Gaza. On pre-1967 maps, the West Bank is officially part of Jordan, and Gaza is officially a part of Egypt. No one objected.
Ethan,
Disingenuous is the word which comes to mind. It was not Palestine it was the Palestine Mandate. The land has been called Palestine for thousands of years. It was called Palestine by all those who occupied it at various times, including the British. It was called Palestine by the Zionists who sought to colonise part or all of it. It was called Palestine by the United Nations which sought to partition it.
All countries until recent times have had fluid borders. Germany existed as Germany even its borders changed. Denmark remained Denmark even as its borders changed and it lost Schleswig-Holstein to Germany.
The argument of Israelis and their supporters, as always, creates a different standard for Palestine and for Palestinians.
There was in fact no India, certainly as we know it today, until Moors occupied much of it for 600 years and the British followed and cobbled together a collection of kingdoms and occupied it for another 300 years. But if anyone tried to argue that because of these occupations over much of the history of this land, there was no historical India they would be laughed out of any intelligent conversation.
I see you are now reduced to the most pedantic of distortions professor. I do not "purport" not to know these figures. I do not know them. More importantly: Neither do you.
Furthermore, the figures do not matter. There is NO connection whatsoever between the fate of these refugees (which you continue to falsely call Middle Eastern even when many of them are from the western Sahara) and the Palestinians. You can call it the Jewish Nakbah and quible about the figures for as long as you like. It was perpetrated by different parties on different victims and has no bearing whatsoever on the Palestinians' position.
Contiue with your attacks on others' integrity, judgement and motives as long as you like. It tells us more about you than it does about them.
No, Big C--
it is important (a) to see the whole picture of what happened, and to everybody; and (b) not to deny what happened in that whole picture, what happened to everybody ("I don't know the figures"--well, the evidence about the huge number of Jewish refugees from the Arab/Muslim lands was enough for the UN).
It would be as if one focused exclusively on the tragedy of the 7 million Muslim refugees (and half a million dead) generated by the Partition of India, and never ever ever mentioned the 7 million Hindu refugees (and perhaps a million dead) which were also generated by that same event.
If you do that sort of thing, you end up with Rosross, who thinks all the Israeli Jews are "Europeans".
it is important (a) to see the whole picture of what happened, and to
everybody; and (b) not to deny what happened in that whole picture,
what happened to everybody
No. Your intention is to distort the picture by introducing irrelevant and unconnected issues and to attack the integrity and motives of those who disagree with you rather than answer their arguments.
The reality is that all the talk in the world will not change one crucial reality:
The Palestinians have time and right on their side and will ultimately get either most or all of their country back. It can end in no other way even if it takes 50 years.
The only question is Israel's survival and that is completely in the hands of Israelis and their supporters. The only way that Israel can survive in any form and that means as a Jewish State (although that too is an anachronism in the modern world and would also be ultimately be doomed) is by Israel returning to originally mandated borders.
If this does not happen then the Palestinians will eventually get all of their country back because there will be a forced outcome of one State with equal rights for all where Palestinians will be the majority and where the name of the country as a whole will be returned to, Palestine.
It is simply impossible in this day and age for Israel to drive out or attempt to kill all of the Palestinians. And, even if they did, there are countless millions of Palestinian refugees which an outraged world would immediately return to a reconstituted one State with equal rights for all.
What is astonishing is how so many Israelis and their supporters cannot see this. That the level of denial and fantasy in which they live blinds them to the truth of their situation.
The occupation cannot last. The colonisation cannot last. Neither of them can succeed. The Palestinians will not go away. World opinion has changed dramatically in recent years and will continue to change. Israel is another apartheid South Africa. Sanctions and boycotts will increase. Resolution will be forced on Israel whether it likes it or not.
If any sort of sanity prevailed Israel would end the occupation immediately and negotiate for final borders. They might then get something more than the originally mandated territory. But there is little sign of this happening and sadly, Israel's intransigence is sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
It does not have to be this way. And the only reason it is this way is that Israelis and their supporters live the lie that they have rights to Palestine and that they also have the right to occupy, colonise and dispossess in ways which would never be tolerated in any other nation. America in particular and the world in general has aided and abetted this Israeli/Zionist/Jewish insanity and the outcome is on all of our hands as is the blood and suffering which has already been created.
Anyone who wishes to see an Israeli state survive must support sanctions and boycotts to force this awful crime of occupation and colonisation to resolution.
Rosross wrote (9-12, at 8:25): "All the talk in the world..." That is, he has no answer to my specific historical points.
In any case;
(1a) People don't have "rights" to land they sold voluntarily (the pre-1947 situation).
(1b) And if you lose more land when you attack your neighbors to whom you sold the original land in the first place (1948), who is to blame for the loss?
(2) My view is that the Israelis made a terrible mistake, both strategically and morally, in attempting settlements on the West Bank after 1973. (I note that this land officially belonged to Jordan, not to any "Palestine", before 1967, and no one--no one-- had objected to this.) But the Israelis have now offered it almost all back, 97% of it at Camp David in 2000, more than 97% at Taba in 2001, and even more than that recently. The Palestinian response is: no dice. So *this* is a totally phony issue ab initio: The settlements don't block peace since the Israelis are willing to give most of them up.
The fundamental fact is that the Palestinians are the blockers of peace. The proof? Zionism doesn't have to change as an ideology to accept a Palestinian state. But Palestinian ideology would have to change fundamentally to accept the existence of Israel, and so far the leadership has been unwilling or politically incapable of doing so. (However, Rosross and Big C applaud this).
(3). The Palestinian Nakbah is more than matched in scale of numbers by the Jewish Nakbah--that is, the expulsion of Jews from Middle Eastern lands (where they had lived peacefully since time immemorial) between 1948 and 1960. The number of Jewish refugees created by Arab governments was 850,000: this is 100,000 *more* displaced persons than the Palestinian refugees created by the war of 1947-1948 which the Palestinian Arabs started.
The existence of these huge numbers of Jewish refugees from Arab/Muslim lands cannot be erased from history--though Big C wants to do it. These refugees are not irrelevant, Big C; they are part of what happened, part of the whole board, and one needs to see the whole board in order to evaluate what happened in toto. These two 'nakbahs' are intimately connected, because the Middle Eastern Jews were made refugees in revenge for the creation of Israel. (A difference is that these Jews did not attack their neighbors.) And this is why it was a population exchange (not a colonial expulsion with only Palestinians as victims, as Big C and Rosross wish): it was a population exchange as happened with Pakistan and India in the same 1947-1948 period (though India-Pakistan was on a huger scale). It is why half the current population of Israel is of recent Middle East origin, just like a significant percentage of the Pakistani population is of Indian origin.
(4) No doubt Rosross and Big C will blame Israel for this nakbah too, blame it for the actions of 15 vicious Arab governments motivated by racial and religious hatred. This is a paternalist attitude on their part, because it gives Arabs no agency for their own decisions and no responsibility in their own history. (This is why I'm trying to provide balance here.)
In Big C's case we also have his explicit claim that the story of these huge numbers of Jewish refugees from Arab/Muslim lands is either a gross distortion or an outright lie because (in his view) an unknown but definitely large percentage of these penniless Jewish refugees living in their miserable displaced persons camps in Israel were actually voluntary participants in what he would call "Zionist colonialism," seduced by the Zionists. But that's not the judgment of the UN, Big C--which classified these people as refugees in precisely the same category as the Palestinians.
Time for Rosross and Big C to realize that history is complex.
Normal
0
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
OpenDemocracy
It seems the original article “The right of return” has morphed into the
rights of the Jewish people and the legitimacy of their historical claim to any
of the land between the river and the sea, as it should be, because that is the
basic foundation of this entire conflict.
rosross
evidentially is not familiar with the different circumstances involved in each
of the different examples of colonization s/he brought to the discussion, and
insinuates they all should be judged as equal.
For example the Native Americans, of both North and South
America had been the exclusive inhabitants of the twin continents for
about 10,000 years before the arrival of the Europeans. So there could be no
controversy as to who was there when. Of course among themselves these native
people had engaged in battles, conflicts and occupations over the best areas in
which to live.
In New Zealand
the Europeans arrived a less than 600 years after the first humans, the Polynesians,
settled the two Islands. Again there could be no question of the order
of settlement.
On a different scale, the people we call the Aborigines of Australia
had that island content to themselves for almost 30,000 years before the
arrival of Europeans.
A totally dissimilarity has been the fate and history of the land between
the river (the Jordan)
and the sea (the Mediterranean). Here the first humans
leaving Africa passed on their (our) way to populate the
planet, and some stayed on to become a variety of different peoples and
cultures.
Of the many peoples who have lived here in the past million plus years the
Jews are the only remaining recognizable identifiable coherent community of the
many original aboriginal peoples who lived here, to have survived the years,
maintaining our unique identifiable language and culture.
As to the Natives of the American, like the Jews they too were dispossessed
of and exiled from of their lands by violent and cruel Europeans.
Unlike the Natives of America/Canada or Australia/New Zealand
the Jewish people seem to be the only aboriginal people who have managed to
regain their sovereignty over their original homeland. This is no small human
achievement. Where else in our world has that happened? Do you know of any
other similar case where this occured? Therefore it is of little wonder that
many people find it difficult to comprehend and assimilate this unique
phenomenon which resembles no other (except perhaps the case of the people of
the island of Saipan.)
If it were possible, would you also
object the return to independence of the native peoples of New York, Ohio,
Nebraska, Texas, California, Peru, Chile or Amazonian etc?
This is not colonisation; there is no home country that the wealth of the
land is being exported too. This is not a foreign people descending on a land
to which they have no previous connection.
Contrary to the statements of “rosross” the archaeological evidence that
has survived the destruction of sites by the Palestinians does indeed record
Hebrew/Jewish/Children of Israel
presence in the land. One of the more blatant examples is graffiti in ancient
Hebrew on the southern end of the western wall of the temple mount. The
discovery of writings known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, also in Hebrew are further
testimony to the early presence of the Jewish people. In addition the ability
of archaeologist scholars to use the ancient Hebrew scriptures as road map to
locations of ancient sites in the country can not be accounted as accidental.
It should also be noted, if the people variously known as Hebrews and later
Jews were not inhabitants of this land five hundred years before the birth of
Mohamed what possible reason could there be for many Christian shrines and holy
sites there? Where did Bethlehem
exist if not in Judea? Most of these also date from before the
Islamic conquest and occupation.
And speaking of the Canaanite claim to the land; if you can find any speakers
of Late Canaanite, I would be very interested to know to which household God
they prefer to sacrifice.
And wouldn’t you know it, just in
time to factually contradict your statement that there is no archaeological
evidence of early Jewish/Hebrew presence in this land we have in today’s
Haaretz newspaper (Sept 11 ’09) a report with photo of a newly uncovered
decorative stone from the earliest known synagogue (50BCE- 100ACE).
It was found next too Migdal, a town next to the Sea of Galilee,
home to Marry Magdalene (from Migdal) note the totally unArabic unPalestinian
name. On its side is the image of the menorah, the seven branched candelabra,
described in the Hebrew Bible, which stood in the Temple
of Jerusalem. Nothing ambiguous,
nothing that can be connected to Islam or the Arab Palestinian culture. Proof positive of the presence of the
Hebrew/Jewish people on the shores of the Sea of Galilee,
as described in the New Testament, five hundred years before the appearance of
Islam and Arabs in the “Holy Land”.
Yoram
Moshav Aminadav
>>The Palestinians have time and right on their side and will ultimately
get either most or all of their country back. It can end in no other
way even if it takes 50 years.
Indeed, that is the ULTIMATE truth! I do hope it does not happen (just wishful thinking)! :(
Post new comment