It is perhaps with those people in mind that British playwright Caryl Churchill has written a play called Seven Jewish Children, in which Jewish parents are depicted discussing what they'll tell their daughters as they bring them up, in seven different historical periods of the State of Israel. Here's an excerpt:
Don’t tell her they set off bombs in cafés
Tell her, tell her they set off bombs in cafés
Tell her to be careful
Don’t frighten her.
Tell her we need the wall to keep us safe
Tell her they want to drive us into the sea
Tell her they don’t
Tell her they want to drive us into the sea.
Tell her we kill far more of them
Don’t tell her that
Tell her that
Tell her we’re stronger
Tell her we’re entitled
Tell her they don’t understand anything except violence
Tell her we want peace
Tell her we’re going swimming.
Needless to say, the Ziosphere is up in arms against Churchill. She's been called an antisemite with a "pornographic interest in Jewish immorality" (here, endorsed here) and the "anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian Prosecution" (here), and her play has been described as an "insidious little play [that is] around to spread its poison" (here) or as a "hate-fuelled little chamber-piece" (here), among other vituperations. There's clearly a lot of frustration on display over the publicity the play has achieved.
It’s very amusing to see how many of Caryl’s negative reviewers have written critiques imitating the “Tell her that–” model (see here, here or here). The play has hit home, not because of its literary merit, which it absolutely lacks, but because of how effectively it ridicules Zionist brainwashing. The crude, childish indoctrination depicted in the play is in fact what young –and adult– Jews are fed by their political and religious leadership.
In a recent exchange over at the British political blog Harry's Place, I had to confront several commenters plus David T, the main contributor to the blog, who insisted that the play was a blood libel. The "proof" for the assertion was the following passage in the piece:
Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her the names, why not, tell her the whole world knows why shouldn’t she know? tell her there’s dead babies, did she see babies? tell her she’s got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her (...) I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.
David T's comment was:
This play claims that Jewish parents encourage Jewish children to revel in the dead of a civil war. That is, quite frankly, untrue. It is also essentially a rehashing of the Blood Libel.
But that is not what the play says. There’s a world of difference between saying “I’m happy she’s covered in blood” and “I’m happy she’s not my daughter.” The play describes, correctly, how Zionists are totally indifferent to the suffering of their perceived enemies. (In this they're no different from other people. They are different, however, in their pretending that they somehow care for their victims.) The play never says that Zionists enjoy it when they see the civilian deaths caused by their regrettable mistakes.
But even if it said so, would it be a blood libel?
By no means: according to all available evidence, the Zionists did revel in the destruction of Gaza. See in the video below how a group of Jewish tourists came to Sderot (which overlooks Gaza) to watch the carnage live. The video is in Danish, but enough English is spoken to raise the viewer's hair:
Pay attention (at 0:48) to how a lovely young Jewish lady called Keren Levy says she went there to see it with her own eyes; she didn’t want to watch it on TV. She then adds, “They chose Hamas to rule them; it’s their fault. They got it to where it is now, not us” (the “they did it to themselves” in Churchill’s prophetic play). Then, at 0:57, she states: “I think they should just clear off all the city, just take it off the ground. Yes; I’m a little bit fascist.”
It’s no blood libel to denounce loud and clear that these very sick people exist within Zionism, and that they don’t face any form of social shunning.
25 comments:
I called her "Miss I'm Just a Little Bit Fascist" Levy the last time I posted this video. I have posted photographs of "three nice young Jewish lads, resembling a flock of Hassidic crows" enjoying the fireworks over Gaza.
I have seen films of them, photos of them, it was written up in Ha'aretz and a few other papers as what people were doing for family picnic dinners. Dancing when there was a strike. Tilting the wine glasses in celebration.
However, judging from a film which I posted last week, of Finklestein speaking, there is a great difference in outlook between the Israeli Jews and the North American Jews. He gives quote after quote and figure after figure to back his claims up of surveys and so on answered by those here.
In Israel about 10% to 15% publicly speak out or protest. Many have been jailed. The young who refuse to serve are jailed and have basically isolated themselves from all of Israeli life because, since ALL serve after high school, they will not share that common bond that holds the people together, memories of "war". I prefer to just call it slaughter myself.
They are also jeopardizing their futures because they will not be hired so easily by most employers.
So obviously not all buy into the stories now, thank the lord.
As for the Jews here, as in Israel, some of the greatest fighters are Jews. They are not so brainwashed, although the ADL is sure trying its criminal best to Talmudize ALL of us let alone those of Jewish blood.
Hopefully things will change, although I have my reservations. And hopefully things like this play will open up opportunities for discussion that are so necessary for change to come about.
Maybe this play is succeeding in ways the creator did not intend!
Tell that to Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Dershowitz & Co.
Anon:
"Caryl Churchill's play is indeed antisemitic pornography of the worst kind."
Pornography?!! Don't tell me you get turned on by the mention of war and death? As for anti-Semitic, we shall check your allegations in a moment:
"1) It gives no voice to the mainstream Jewish opinions on the subject at hand, but instead invents its own "Jewish" voice and projects it onto "the Jews""
I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream" here. The play narrates Jewish history over a long period of time, from their persecution in Europe until their settlement in Palestine, and their ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. Are you suggesting that "mainstream" Jews don't tell their children about their history of persecution? Or are you suggesting that those in Israel don't reiterate Zionist propaganda to their children when they want to explain the conflict to them? (Lest we forget that a whopping 94% of Israeli Jews supported the three week offensive on Gaza, better known as the Gaza massacre).
"2) It depicts the Jews (not the Israelis or Zionists mind you but the JEWS) as evil"
How so? It clearly narrates a history of suffering of the Jewish people (where they are depicted as victims). Later, it talks about the history of those Jews who went to Palestine, and restates their narrative. Those Jews that have gone to Palestine didn't do very nice things to the natives, but that doesn't insinuate that Jewish people worldwide are bad or evil.
"3) It depicts the Jews as masters of deception"
The play clearly restated the lines of justification often used by Zionists and their supporters to create a case for Israel. They are indeed very deceptive lines of propaganda, and kudos for you for noticing that. Of course, not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Jews have to talk to their children about Palestine. It is only those who are either Zionists or Israelis that find themselves in a position to talk to their children, and they often tell their children their narrative, which is deceptive. But that's just Zionism for you.
"4) It depicts the Jews as coveting material possessions (in this case land)"
She didn't say they coveted material possessions. She merely restated the claims of the Zionist movement about the land, such as the Jewish people being chosen, and that they are entitled to the land and so on…
"5) It depicts Jews as lusting after the blood of children"
She clearly said that parents were happy that the dead children were not theirs. Does that make them lust after the blood of children? I certainly would be happy if my child was safe and not covered with blood like other children.
It goes without saying, that when the play began talking about Palestine,Jewish people referred to, were Zionists, because clearly non-Zionist Jews would have no interest in colonizing Palestine.
Good Fisking, Sarah!
Maybe you should put up some quotes to help make the case.
Sarah,
It is just so SAD that someone like you lives in precisely the same sort of fantasy world as the Nazis did, believing that the Jews were committing "genocide" by "slaughtering" "Innocent" people.
Let's recall that all the Arabs killed by Israel since 1948 is around the same number of Jews killed in 3 DAYS in Auschwitz in 1944. And let's also remember that the vast majority of these were combatants and not civilians.
The charge of "genocide" is completely LUDICROUS if you think that the Palestinian Arabs have had one of the fastest rates of population growth in the world! If it was a proper "genocide" -- like, say, Sudan (which you don't get too worked up about do you) -- there would be a decline in population (quite drastic in the case of Sudan.) The charge of "ethnic cleansing" is equally demented since more Jews by far were expelled from the surrounding Arab countries than Israel ever expelled Palestinians. Yes, in the midst of a brutal invasion of Israel, people were forced out of their villages and migrated, never to return -- but this was never a systematic policy of expulsion and deportation. How could it be? There were only 600,000 Jews in Palestine at the time, including women and children and the elderly, and a quarter of them were Holocaust survivors! Besides this kind of thing happens in EVERY war. Just look at the numbers of refugees who never returned home from WWII, the India-Pakistan Wars, Yugoslavia, etc. and you will see that the so-called "plight of the Palestinians" is an antisemitic fiction.
As I said, your antisemitism blinds you to the truths of history and those like you who believe such antisemitic fantasies will eventually be condemned by future generations.
As Hitelr says in Mein Kampf, "we must do everything possible to prevent an establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine because it will be a state of thieves and a haven for criminals." Exactly what you believe Sarah. So you and Hitler agree -- not on vegetarianism or some other detail -- but on the crucial point of the survival and self-determination of the Jewish People.
It is a shame on humanity that merely 60 years after 2 million Jewish children were gassed to death by the european goyim, their idiotic descendants currently promote the same barbaric & genocidal antisemitism of Hitler in its post-modern "humanist" form whether through the play of Caryl Churchill or in comment boards such as these.
Yet again you come here with a plethora of lies, none of which amounts to any real value.
"It is just so SAD that someone like you lives in precisely the same sort of fantasy world as the Nazis did, believing that the Jews were committing "genocide" by "slaughtering" "Innocent" people."
I don't recall ever saying the Jews committed genocide. I concur that I accused Zionists of murdering innocent people, and I recall saying Zionists committed an ethnic cleansing, and I remember calling the policies of the Zionist state genocidal – which is different from the term genocide. Genocidal policies are policies that lead to the death of large numbers of people. The siege imposed on Gaza is an example, with the prevention of medical and humanitarian aid leading to large number of deaths.
But I never accused the Jewish people of committing genocide.
"Let's recall that all the Arabs killed by Israel since 1948 is around the same number of Jews killed in 3 DAYS in Auschwitz in 1944."
How is that relevant? Does the fact that less Arabs were killed by Zionists, than Jews were killed by Hitler, make the murder of Arabs somehow acceptable?!
"And let's also remember that the vast majority of these were combatants and not civilians."
Care to prove that?
"The charge of "genocide" is completely LUDICROUS if you think that the Palestinian Arabs have had one of the fastest rates of population growth in the world!"
Again I don't recall ever saying genocide took place. I said an ethnic cleansing took place, and I also said Israel's policies towards the Palestinians are genocidal. Furthermore, what do the growth rates of a population have to do with genocide? That would be like me saying the Holocaust didn't happen, because there are still millions of Jews in the world. The two facts are not related.
"If it was a proper "genocide" -- like, say, Sudan (which you don't get too worked up about do you) -- there would be a decline in population (quite drastic in the case of Sudan.)"
Accusing me of being indifferent to those murdered in Sudan is a filthy, baseless attempt on your behalf to discredit me.
The genocide in Sudan is horrific, but what happens in Sudan doesn't absolve Israel from its responsibility towards the Palestinians.
"The charge of "ethnic cleansing" is equally demented since more Jews by far were expelled from the surrounding Arab countries than Israel ever expelled Palestinians."
There's a number of problems with your statement:
First, it's inaccurate. The claim that Arab Jews were expelled from their countries is a myth that has been refuted by many respectable Mizrahi historians such as Rachel Sabi and Yehouda Shenhav. I don't have time to restate the facts, so I'll refer you to an article by Shenhav, who has written extensively on the subject:
http://tiny.cc/JoerP
Secondly, Assuming your analogy is correct (which it isn't), that still doesn't revoke the Palestinian's right to return. Lest we forget that the Palestinians were expelled in 1947/48,en masse, within a period of 10 months, before the mass immigration or exodus if you will, of Arab Jews. If Arab Jews had indeed been expelled in retaliation for the expulsion of the Palestinians, then they would be entitled to the exact same rights as the Palestinians: right of return, compensation and reparations. I have no problem with that, and I don't think any decent person would. But, as I mentioned before, the rights of the Palestinians cannot be terminated, because of the claims of Arab Jews, or any other group for that matter.
"Yes, in the midst of a brutal invasion of Israel, people were forced out of their villages and migrated, never to return -- but this was never a systematic policy of expulsion and deportation. How could it be? There were only 600,000 Jews in Palestine at the time, including women and children and the elderly, and a quarter of them were Holocaust survivors!"
The Yishuv had several militant/ terrorist gangs operating in Palestine. They were heavily armed, organized and received arms shipments from Europe. About 400,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes and villages prior to the invasion of the Arab armies, who invaded to rescue them from the terrorism of the Zionist gangs. It's sufficient to read through the writings of Zionist leaders, to figure out whether the expulsion was intentional or not. To quote Jabotinsky: "…the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." Sounds pretty meditated to me.
Anyway, even if you still insist that it wasn't pre-meditated, the Palestinians should've been allowed to return.
"Besides this kind of thing happens in EVERY war. Just look at the numbers of refugees who never returned home from WWII, the India-Pakistan Wars, Yugoslavia, etc. and you will see that the so-called "plight of the Palestinians" is an antisemitic fiction."
Yet again, you come back with an incoherent claim. The fact that many people were expelled from their homes, and not allowed to return, neither makes the situation acceptable, not does it mean the Palestinians didn't suffer. Trying to justify the expulsion of the Palestinians, because it happened to other people in other places, is akin to justifying the Holocaust, because other genocides happened before. It's immoral and unfounded.
"As I said, your antisemitism blinds you to the truths of history and those like you who believe such antisemitic fantasies will eventually be condemned by future generations.
As Hitelr says in Mein Kampf, "we must do everything possible to prevent an establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine because it will be a state of thieves and a haven for criminals." Exactly what you believe Sarah. So you and Hitler agree -- not on vegetarianism or some other detail -- but on the crucial point of the survival and self-determination of the Jewish People."
You are committing two logical fallacies here.
I have mentioned this one before: You can't discredit someone's argument because you think Hitler said something similar. It's called a “guilt by association” fallacy. You can only compare if my reasons, are the same as Hitler's, which they aren't. You committed a straw man when you equated my reasons for opposing the state of Israel with Hitler's reasons. You misrepresented my stand, and then tried to accuse me of anti-Semitism, which is just pathetic.
I am not opposed to the survival of Jews. I am opposed to the colonization of Palestine by Zionists and the creation of a Jewish state on the EXPENSE of the native Palestinians.
You, on the other hand, are willing to justify the suffering of the Palestinians, and go as far as accusing those who acknowledge their suffering, of being anti-semitic.
"It is a shame on humanity that merely 60 years after 2 million Jewish children were gassed to death by the european goyim, their idiotic descendants currently promote the same barbaric & genocidal antisemitism of Hitler in its post-modern "humanist" form whether through the play of Caryl Churchill or in comment boards such as these."
It's a shame that 60 years after the colonization of Palestine, and the expulsion of Palestinians, idiotic Zionist supremacists continue to abuse the memory of the Holocaust, to justify their oppression of the Palestinians.
Anon:
The main reason why the "let's compare them [anti-Zionists] to Hitler" ploy doesn't work is the following.
The anti-Semitic lies that were bandied around for centuries, resulting in frequent Jewish persecution, untold suffering, expulsions and ultimately the Jewish Holocaust were effectively nothing but whole fabrications, complete and utter lies. No truth in them whatsoever.
But when we say that Zionists ethnically cleansed whole parts of Palestine in 1948 (and before), in 1967 and to this present day, that is a historically verified truth (as historically verified as the Holocaust itself. No Israeli historian or historiographer denies the fact of the Palestinian Naqba, this is simply not in dispute and never really was either).
You are thus comparing apples and oranges: the anti-Semitic lies that ultimately lead to the Holocaust with the historical facts of ethnic cleansing of the land of Palestine by Zionists, from about 1920 onwards to the present day.
Do you ever listen to your own politicians and fellow travelers? Because they are getting increasingly overt in announcing their plans to complete the ethnic cleansing of what is left of Palestine. Having been allowed and later even supported by the powers that be (US and Europe), Zionists are suffering from hubris and are beginning to get sloppy about hiding their true intentions. Numerous statements by leading Zionists attest to that.
And lesser Zionist souls increasingly adopt the disgusting 'nobody suffered more than we did, so who cares about a few Palestinians', which reflects an increasingly 'we really don't care, you know' attitude to the suffering of a people that never harmed you and never asked to have a 'Jewish State' built right over its own civilisation...
Zionism is racism, pure and unadulterated.
Besides this kind of thing happens in EVERY war. Just look at the numbers of refugees who never returned home from WWII, the India-Pakistan Wars, Yugoslavia, etc. and you will see that the so-called "plight of the Palestinians" is an antisemitic fiction.Hahahaha, how predictable...
This is the last step in the great Gabriel Ash's crash course in Zionist apologizing. After everything else has failed, you claim "everything sucks," and end of discussion: how can you talk about Palestinian refugees when the Bimbokos are committing a genocide of Moushawis in Namibundi?
In real life, however, what counts is whether the Palestinians were in fact expelled or not. And they were. All reference to other tragedies is simply muddying the waters.
littlehorn:
So now your blaming Nazism on the Zionists as well? So the State of Israel is retroactively responsible for the Holocaust, and not the Germans and their European Christian collaborators? Do you realize how retarded you sound?!
Anon:
A Reparations Agreement between Germany and Israel exists and has in fact resulted in substantial sums of money having been paid to Israel and the WJC.
Glad to see that you at least acknowledge that there is Palestinian property in Palestine! I see you've been reading up a bit!
Gert:
I worked in the field of German Holocaust reparations for some time so no need to lecture me. Suffice it to say that the German property reparations process (not asset restitution or compensation for slave labor) but just Jewish property held in Germany) has been ongoing for over 17 years and has barely paid back 40%. And of course, Germany (for obvious reasons) has done by far the most in terms of restitution. Poland for instance refuses ANY Jewish property restitution at all despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that the Claims Conference calculates that Jewish property in Poland is currently worth around a third of the country's GDP. And that's not even getting around to Jewish property confiscated in Baghdad, Cairo, Tunis, Algiers, Damascus and elsewhere across the Arab world.
As I said before, if the Europeans and the Arabs want to force Israel to give back Palestinian property from 60 years ago, than let's be fair about and restitute Jewish property around the world from the same time period.
Of course, this will NEVER HAPPEN because there's simply way too much stolen Jewish property to restitute and there's no way the Europeans or Arabs would sacrifice so much to help the Palestinians (despite the lip service.)
"As I said before, if the Europeans and the Arabs want to force Israel to give back Palestinian property from 60 years ago, than let's be fair about and restitute Jewish property around the world from the same time period."
Please note that Arabs aren't asking for their property back, they're asking for the right to return. Not the same thing. Some compensation will have to be paid but as I hold Israel, Europe and the US equally responsible for that past and ongoing Naqba, the financial burden here should be on all three, not just Israel.
"Of course, this will NEVER HAPPEN because there's simply way too much stolen Jewish property to restitute and there's no way the Europeans or Arabs would sacrifice so much to help the Palestinians (despite the lip service.)"
The key point here is that Europe, for historical reasons, has chosen to side with the Zionists and does indeed pay lip service only to the Palestinian cause. The US's relationship to the ME is one of a symbiosis with Israel, to facilitate the US's hegemonistic designs on the region. The Western Alliance also dictates that Europe not protest this state of affairs too much.
But things could change quickly. In the US, Gaza has caused increased awareness of the suffering of the Palestinians, facilitated with US tax dollars. There's a lot of Israel-related stuff that less than a year ago one couldn't talk about without being drowned out by Zionist allegations of anti-Semitism, that is now mainstream. A tipping point of public opinion hasn't yet been reached but is now within reach, IMHO. To really achieve something, American anti-Zionists don't even have to obtain a majority: a sizable minority would be enough to start affecting US policy vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine. And in Europe too, a groundswell of public opinion is starting to form.
I figured I won't bother with your claptrap anymore, considering you haven't addressed any of my arguments, and instead came back with more lies and fabrications.Yeah, that's pretty much all he does.
We've yet to see you prove that Arab Jews were "expelled". You haven't.
Well, Sarah I guess we have what's called different "historical narratives." There is a plethora of documentation regarding the systematic and coordinated expulsion and dispossession of nearly a million Jews from dozens of Arab countries. You don't really think these Jews would leave huge fortunes behind voluntarily do you? I don't have time or energy to refute your ridiculous historical revisionism -- another antisemitic form of denial -- but if you're interested you can read up on it here: http://www.jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/
On the other hand, from everything I have read I have seen ZERO evidence of a systematic program of expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from israel by the early Zionists. On the contrary, most of the Palestinian Arabs were told to leave by the 6 invading Arab armies in order to get out of the line of fire so that they could bomb Jewish settlements without harming any of their brothers. During a war in which 10% of the Jewish population of Israel was killed and thousands of jewish villages were destroyed it's chutzpah to whine about the expulsion of the Palestinians -- especially when these same Arabs were well armed by Britain and organized into local militias dedicated to killing as many Jews as possible. ANd the Arabs lost. And so the refugees who fled the war zone have no right to return to reap the huge benefits of living in the Jewish State.
Anon:
You're stuck in a historical time warp, holding on to early Zionist mythology no serious Israeli historian or historiographer believes today (or has done for a long time).
"On the contrary, most of the Palestinian Arabs were told to leave by the 6 invading Arab armies in order to get out of the line of fire so that they could bomb Jewish settlements without harming any of their brothers."
This is anti-historical bullcrap that perhaps you've grown up on perhaps but that has been debunked thoroughly by scores of historians. It's really up there with the 'a land without people for a people without land' myth, perhaps you believe that too?
Not once in history has a people fled to make way for an advancing liberating army. Not once, do you hear? What happens, entirely logically of course, is that people flee from advancing occupying armies to avoid the mayhem of war and a violent and unpredictable future for them and their families. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans thus fled from the advancing Wehrmacht, as did similar numbers of Germans during the Allied offensive on Germany. My own grandfather and his family fled from his hometown to avoid being caught up with the Nazi occupation of Europe.
See e.g. this interview with Shlomo Ben-Ami (former Israeli Foreign Minister:SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, for all practical purposes, a state existed before it was officially created in 1948. The uniqueness of the Zionist experience, as it were, was in that the Zionists were able, under the protection of the mandate, of the British mandate, to set up the essentials of a state — the institutions of a state, political parties, a health system, running democracy for Jews, obviously — before the state was created, so the transition to statehood was a declaration, basically, and it came about in the middle of two stages of war, a civil war between the Israelis and the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine and then an invasion by the Arab armies. The point that I made with regard to the war is that the country, to the mythology that existed and exists, continues to exist mainly among Israelis and Jews, is that Israel was not in a military disadvantage when the war took place. The Arab armies were disoriented and confused, and they did not put in the battlefield the necessary forces.
So, in 1948, what was born was a state, but also original superpower in many ways. We have prevailed over the invading Arab armies and the local population, which was practically evicted from Palestine, from the state of Israel, from what became the state of Israel, and this is how the refugee problem was born. Interestingly, the Arabs in 1948 lost a war that was, as far as they were concerned, lost already in 1936-1939, because they have fought against the British mandate and the Israeli or the Jewish Yishuv, the Jewish pre-state, and they were defeated then, so they came to the hour of trial in 1948 already as a defeated nation. That is, the War of 1948 was won already in 1936, and they had no chance to win the war in 1948. They were already a defeated nation when they faced the Israeli superpower that was emerging in that year.
'a land without people for a people without land' myth, perhaps you believe that too?
You show me one single mention of the "Palestinians" pre-WWI and I will recant.
There could be no mention of the Palestinian people today and the grounds for opposing Zionism wouldn't substantially change. We'd just be calling its victims by a different name. No one has to belong to that exclusive peoples' club to make their dispossession objectionable.
andrew r.
you miss the point entirely. the fact that the Palestinians were never a "people" distinct from their neighbors with their own history of sovereignty over the land ultimately serves to negate their claims of ownership to it. This is exactly what those legendary early Zionists understood when they bought land from the Ottoman Sultan and proclaimed, with 100% historical accuracy, that pre-Mandate Palestine was a "land without a people."
Gert: "You're stuck in a historical time warp"
You mean I do not accept the antisemitic historical revisionism that passes for "scholarship" in certain far leftwing academic circles?
Lev:
It's totally and completely immaterial what the inhabitants of Palestine, Jews included, called themselves. There was no Palestinian nation state but there was at that time no Israel either. The point is that Palestine was a fairly busy place before the early Zionists started settling there and soon the first clashes between the indigenous Arab people and the settlers started.
See for example this interesting post about pre-Zionist Jaffa...
Anon:
The accepted history of Zionism from say 1900 to present day has nothing to do with Left or Right. Your own historians, from whatever political persuasion, are largely in agreement, with minor squabbles about some details.
The version of "history" you like to adhere to and were probably brought up on is typical of early nationalistic narratives of emerging states: British nationalistic historic tales are notoriously inaccurate, self-serving and self-aggrandising too. So are French etc etc. And so are Israeli...
Anon, this is the criteria you set out for the Palestinians to be immune from Zionism:
a) to own the land they live on or be sovereign
b) to be a distinct nation from other Ottoman subjects
No one would apply this to themselves. Do you know how many Americans don't own the land they live on? If Zionism comes to America, should a tenant be expelled from their country at gunpoint because they're not distinct from other Americans?
Sovereignty also means self-governing. That applied to Palestine under Constantinople no less than other Ottoman provinces. Palestine had its own governors and representatives in parliament.
Although I think this talk about sovereignty is code for no army = can't fight back = ripe for the taking.
Anon:
In a sense, no one is indigenous to anywhere (we're all immigrants from Africa), true 'indigenousness' therefore doesn't really exist.
We do know though that Palestine was populated for centuries with Arabs (Arab Palestinians) and a minority of Jewish Palestinians who coexisted there quite peacefully. That's as 'indigenous' as it gets. To justify the expulsion of Arab Palestinians on the grounds that 'they're not indigenous' is racist folly.
Have a look round the world for examples where one ethnicity has systematically tried to remove another (on the grounds that the latter 'wasn't indigenous') and find out what happened to those regimes and their leaders. The world will not tolerate further ethnic cleansing/Jewish colonisation of Palestinian land for another sixty years or so.
Hey Anon, you know who else used the term "the Jews"? Adolf Hitler. You keeping referring to these "the Jews" yourself. You must be a Nazi anti-semite. Wow, I'm a bloody genius.
So obviously not all buy into the stories now, thank the lord.
Post a Comment