Guardian editorial predictably embraces ‘settlement root cause theory’.

Though the Guardian fancies itself ‘the world’s leading liberal voice‘, a fair analysis of the paper’s editorial stance on a myriad of issues suggests an institutional failure to adhere to two important elements of ‘liberalism’ properly understood. 

First, they often betray the spirit of liberalism insofar as the term denotes support for free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, women’s rights and tolerance towards sexual minorities.  

Second, they fail to show fealty towards another principle attached to the term: open-mindedness and a willingness to examine political phenomena objectively and without preconceived ideas or prejudices.

As such, the media group is often doctrinaire and predictable in their tendency to be suspicious of Western democracies yet often sympathetic towards ‘lefitst’ authoritarianism; hostile towards Tories and Republicans but forgiving of Marxists and Islamists; and, of course, hyper-critical of Zionists but tolerant of even the most reactionary expressions of Palestinian nationalism.

Regarding the latter issue, we were confident to a degree approaching empirical certainty that the Guardian would publish an editorial after talks between the two parties broke down not only blaming Israel, but focusing their ire on the one issue which, in the opinion of their editors, reporters and commentators, represents the root cause of the impasse: Israeli ‘settlements’.

Har Homa, Jerusalem

Har Homa, Jerusalem

Of course, the mere absence of evidence that such settlement construction – or, often, just housing tenders – had any substantive impact on the failure of the US Secretary of State to get the two parties to agree to a long-term agreement (or even a framework agreement) was never going to represent an obstacle to the inevitable conclusion in their April 27 editorial, Israel and the Palestinians: lost opportunities:

The failure of the talks between Israelis and Palestinians which John Kerry, the US secretary of state, pursued with such determination over nine difficult months can hardly have taken Mr Abbas by surprise. It had been widely anticipated. But the barely concealed relish with which the government of Binyamin Netanyahu two weeks ago bade goodbye to negotiations which they had effectively torpedoed by authorising new settlement-building seems to have pushed President Abbas into an uncharacteristically extreme burst of activity, and perhaps into a strategic change of course.

Leaving aside the fact that their editorial naturally also downplays the significance of Fatah’s announced unity with the Islamist terror group Hamas to the talks’ implosion, even the most casual observer of the 9 months of negotiations would have to acknowledge one undeniable fact which undermines the Guardian’s belief: Israel never agreed to so much as curtail the construction of homes beyond the green line (in Jerusalem or the West Bank) in the initial agreement between the two parties (brokered by the Americans) to begin talks last July.

So, how can Guardian editors – or anyone for that matter – now claim that the talks were “torpedoed” by activity the Palestinians tacitly agreed could continue?

Finally, a few words on the specious logic which underpins the broader settlement mantra.

Negotiations have, since at least 2000, been premised on the broad understanding that final borders would inevitably include Israel maintaining large settlement blocs – including predominately Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem – contiguous with 1949 Armistice Line boundaries (where the overwhelming majority of the construction since July has taken place), and the abandonment of more isolated settlements. 

Map reflecting Israeli peace plan in 2008

Map reflecting Israeli peace plan in 2008

In addition to the fact that any new homes built in isolated settlements – located within territory which will become part of Palestine – could easily be evacuated after a peace deal is signed, how can anyone seriously claim that new homes built on land which will certainly remain Israeli represents an obstacle to a two-state agreement?

It seems that a truly liberal publication – one which values the rigorous examination of evidence over a blind adherence to conventional wisdom and political talking points – would understand that the ‘settlement root cause theory’, advanced by the Palestinians and lazily embraced by the UK media elite, fails the most rudimentary tests of logic and common sense.

Enhanced by Zemanta

82 replies »

  1. Why the “safe passage” route is required in the Olmert plan if the agreement brings peace between these two states for two peoples? The Arabs can just use Israeli roads to travel between WB and Gaza, just like in the EU a German in Zittau can travel through the Czech Republic to visit Passau. They don’t need a special German-only tunnel – and the Czechs and Germans were at war within living memory. A war much more bloody that the Arab/Israeli war and with many times more German refugees.

    • The Germans haven’t spent the postwar years trying to annihilate the Czech Republic. Nor have Germans spent the last few decades sending suicide bombers into Czech pizzarias and buses, or fired thousands of rockets at Czech civilians, or cut the throats of Czech children. Also, German clerics, politicians, schools and media don’t incite hatred against the Czechs.

      • I know, but they used to do the equivalent of those things. What happened to usher in the current state of relations between Czechs and Germans? The Germans were utterly crushed in the war they started. Same has to happen to the Arabs in their war before there is peace – then no one will have to build an elevated Arab-only highway.

        • Your comparison is ridiculous and I am saying that as a Czech. The difference between the two conflicts is that it was not a war between Germans and Czechs (or Czechoslovaks back then), but between Nazis and us. Once the Nazi lunatics were defeated, Germany became a democratic country, with us following once the Communism fell over here in 1989. Conversely, in Arab-Israeli conflict, if the peace came tomorrow, Israelis would have a Palestinian state next to them with the same murdering scumbags that were threatening to annihilate their country and killing their people just a few days before. And that is a very good reason for concern and for separating the roads…

          • You think all Arabs are murdering scumbags? You are mis-informed. Israel needs to wipe out the Nazis among the Arabs just as we did so with the Nazis among the Germans. When the non-Nazi Arabs are free they will have a similar gratitude towards Israel as the anti-Nazi Germans had and have towards the Allies. Only then will there be peace and only then should the Arab areas be given the option of self-government.

            • No, it is up to the arabs themselves to do that. It is time they take responsibility for their future and act. Sadly it will never happan

              • In that case there will never be peace among the Arabs which means Israel has to act unilaterally so at least it has quiet to get on with living. And that means driving out the PLO etc. Either way, the only option is to reverse Oslo and cultivate relations with coexistence Arabs in J&S who will no longer be in danger.

      • Just like the Czechs have not led massive air strikes over densely populated, residential German areas, as was done to Gaza in 2008-2009.

  2. Around 400 Arab towns and villages were depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Some places were entirely destroyed and left uninhabitable;[1][2] others were left with a few hundred residents and were repopulated by Jewish immigrants, then renamed. No wonders there is so much resistance to the occupation of Palestine. With over 4.5 million refugees as a result of over 60 years of coocupation. occupied are not going to love for you fro being so nice, Are they?

    • “..over 60 years of coocupation”
      “ love for you fro being so nice.”

      Stick to copy and paste ‘JerkOff’, when you try and string a sentence together it is beyond laughable and pathetic.
      Perhaps one of your colleagues in the sewage farm that produces the shit you post can lend you a brain cell then you can double the number you have in your brain at the moment.

    • John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, said: “Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war” (London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948).

      The Economist,reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit….It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

      The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: “Any opposition to this order…is an obstacle to the holy war…and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts”

      Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”

      etc., etc., etc

    • Who cares about the Arabs who ran away from a war that they wanted and helped create. You just use them as a stick to beat Jews. And who cares about the millions of descendants of Jewish refugees from the arab and muslim-majority countries who were driven out despite being peaceful citizens. Certainly not you, you hypocrite.

  3. The “towns” and villages destroyad by the British army are attributed to the independence war. Such silliness.

    • 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homeland in 1948, when the State of Israel was created.

  4. So Dier Yassin was destroyed and the villagers killed by the British – I did’nt know that. You learn something new everyday about Zionist History. Palestine is occuped by the British. Fritz what planet do you live on. If the Brits did all this why the Palestinians cannot return to their homes now the British are gone?

  5. Fritz history according to Benny Morris – He does not mention the the destruction of Deir Yassin by the Brits –
    According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

    “Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field – they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village – she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

    “The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

    “That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres.”

    • Hazem Nusseibeh, a member of one of Jerusalem’s most prominent Arab families. In 1948 he was an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic news.

      He admits that in 1948 he was instructed by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state. He made this damming admission in explaining why the Arabs failed in the 1948 war. He said “this was our biggest mistake”, because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.

      Shall we start talking about the arab massacares? Gush Etzion? Hadassah medical convoy? Ben Yehuda Street? etc etc .

    • NatziePampers doesn`t know anything about Arab massacres of Jews, going on since 1920.
      Deir Yassin firstly was a place of fight against Arab snipers who keep on targeting Jewish civilians and neighbour villages, events the terror propaganda of fellow travellers try to omit.

  6. So, how did so many historians, including Zionist historians missed all this alexa – You can start with anything you want but you cannot get away from one fact that the Palestinians were driven out of their homes through fear generated by massacres as reported among others by Zionist historians. It is the Palestinians who were dispossessed. It were the Zionists who took possession. Palestinians were colonized and the Zionist remain the colonizers. At least Benny Morris remains true to history. .

    • Jews AND Arabs were dispossessed in what became an exchange of populations due to a racist Arab war against law-abiding Jews, both indigenous and immigrants. You only care about the initiators and losers of that war and that makes you a dishonest commentator.

    • Who took possession of the homes and property of the million Jews forced out of Arab countries and why is that perfectly acceptable to you?

      • The emigration of Arab Jews to Israel in the 50s was partly supported by the State of Israel, which was eager to increase its population. You can hardly compare it to the forced displacement of 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland in 1948.

        • What gives you the right to speak on behalf of the Jewish refugees who in many countries were stripped of all property and possession?

          Yes, it is true the Jews are a nation who look after one another. What is your point?

          Most of those Arabs who were displaced were *internally* displaced – yet even today they live in “refugee camps”??? Not only are the Arabs not a nation who care for each other, the “Palestinians’ don’t even care about each other.

        • Fritz Wunderbaiter

          “You can hardly compare it to the forced displacement of 750,000 Palestinians…”.

          A dark European heart like yours, is by its very nature, incapable of expanding the horizon of your imagination to empathise with the plight of those Jews who merely ’emigrated’ from Arab lands. And that is why you are a Jew-baiter.

        • The emigration of Arab Jews to Israel in the 50s was partly supported by the State of Israel, which was eager to increase its population. You can hardly compare it to the forced displacement of 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland in 1948.”

          Moron. The Palestinian’s stateless existence is wholly supported by the Palestinian Authority (who has rejected 3 state offers from 4 prime ministers) and the terror industry (Hamas, IJ, etc) both of whom are eager to maintain a stance of war in order to increase its proposed land mass. The “forced displacement,” Shitwad, came after they were given THEIR OWN FRIGGING STATE to be alongside the Jewish state. A frigging state, btw, THAT WILL JUST ABOUT MATCH THE LAND MASS OFFERED IN 1948 SQUANDERED BY THE NEED TO START A WAR WHICH STILL, APPARENTLY, HASN’T ENDED.

          You people — and by that, I mean BDSers, Nazi Ingrates, Jew hating morons, really fucking stupid dipshits with no other life than bashing Israel on the Interwebs — have to be the most useless, pathetic, so-called pundits on the planet. When the Aliens come, they will look at you and LAUGH. They’ll think, These must be the low hanging fruit of the species. Not ripe. Not juicy. Just fat and lame.

        • not emingration but forced displacement of Jews from arab countries or else why did they leave not only to Israel?

          In a key address to the Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on the morning of November 24, 1947, just five days before that body voted on the partician plan for Palestine,
          Heykal Pasha, an Egyptian delegate, made the following statement:

          “The United Nations … should not lose sight of the fact that the proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Moslem countries. … If the United Nations decided to partition Palestine they might be responsible for very grave disorders and for the massacre of a large number of Jews.”

          Jamal Husseini, representing the Arab Higher Committee
          of Palestine to the UN General Assembly, made the following threat:

          “It should be remembered that there were as many Jews in the Arab world as there are in Palestine whose positions might become very precarious.”

          Iraq’s Foreign Minister Fadil Jamali, at the 126th Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly stated: “Not only the uprising of the Arabs in Palestine is to be expected but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate.”

          etc etc etc

    • Massacares which most were fabricated as arabs themsleves admitted.
      Benni morris by the way said :Starting in December 1947, he said, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.” He concluded, “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these arly Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 590).

  7. Now in the real world. When Zionists started arriving in Palestine, at the end of the 19th century Palestinians were living there for at least a millennium. The Palestinians were justifiably frightened that they will be dispossessed in their own country. Zionist literature talked about relocating the natives to neighboring countries. In 1948 Palestinians were ultimately forced through massacres that were designed to bring about the flight of Palestinians out of fear. The Jews in other Arab countries did not leave their homes until after the expulsion of the Palestinians. Nobody is denying the quid-pro-quo expulsions of the Jews. But as the term implies it was a direct result of what was done to the Palestinians in Palestine. The early Zionists had always dreamt of throwing the Palestinians off their lands. Many still do and are doing. It is no different to what the Apartheid regime tried to do to the Blacks.

    By the way, which section of the law abiding Zionists bombed King George Hotel in Jerusalem.

    Those Jews, or their descendants, who were dispossessed in Arabs countries have every right to return to their properties. Perhaps the Zionists would afford the Palestinians the same courtesy. This will allow peace to be restored in no time.

    • Most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the 1845-1947 Muslim migrants from the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, the Caucasus, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, India, Afghanistan and Balochistan.

      Arab migrant workers were imported by the Ottoman Empire and by the British Mandate (which defeated the Ottomans in 1917) to work on infrastructure projects: The port of Haifa, the Haifa-Qantara (1918), Haifa-Edrei (1905), Haifa-Nablus (1914) and Jerusalem-Jaffa (1892) railroads, military installations, roads, quarries, reclamation of wetlands, etc. Legal and illegal Arab laborers were also attracted by the relative economic boom, stimulated by the annual Jewish immigration beginning in 1882.

  8. Here it is from the the founder of Zionism, Herzl’s own diaries –
    Altneuland was written both for Jews and non-Jews: Herzl wanted to win over non-Jewish opinion for Zionism.[33] When he was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he wrote in his diary:

    “When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us”, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, vol. 1 (New York: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), pp. 88, 90 hereafter Herzl diaries.

  9. The uneducated NatziePampers cites Wikipedia, instead of citing the diaries.
    The wikipedia entry is followed by this sentence which hints to a biased author who is so silly to maintain that:
    Herzl’s draft of a charter for a Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) gave the JOLC the right to obtain land in Palestine by giving its owners comparable land elsewhere in the Ottoman empire.
    In which Palestine? An invented one, obviously.

  10. The invention of Palestine in 1919 in Paris
    The Zionist Organization respectfully submits the following draft resolutions for the consideration of the Peace Conference:

    1. The High Contracting Parties recognize the historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine and the right of Jews to reconstitute in Palestine their National Home.

    2. The boundaries of Palestine shall be as declared in the Schedule annexed hereto.

    3. The sovereign possession of Palestine shall be vested in the League of Nations and the Government entrusted to Great Britain as Mandatory of the League.

    4. (Provision to be inserted relating to the application in Palestine of such of the general conditions attached to mandates as are suitable to the case.)

    5. The mandate shall be subject also to the following special conditions:

    1. Palestine shall be placed under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment there of the Jewish National Home, and ultimately render possible the creation of an autonomous Commonwealth, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

    To this end the Mandatory Power shall inter alia:

    1. Promote Jewish settlement and close settlement on the land, the established rights of the present non-Jewish population being equitably safeguarded.

    2. Accept the co-operation in such measures of a Council representative of the Jews in Palestine and of the world that may be established for the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine and entrust the organization of Jewish education to such Council.

    3. On being satisfied that the constitution of such Council precludes the making of private profit, offer to the Council in priority any concession for public works or for the development of natural sources which may be found desirable to grant.

    1. The Mandatory Power shall encourage the widest measure of self-government for localities practicable in the conditions of the country.

    2. There shall be for ever the fullest freedom of religious worship for all creeds in Palestine. There shall be no discrimination among the inhabitants with regard to citizenship and civil rights, on the grounds of religion, or of race.

    3. (Provision to be inserted relating to the control of the Holy Places.)

    • NatziePampers doesn`t know that Palestine was meant as region which nowadays are the states of Israel and Jordan.
      So he just confirms that Jordan is part of the old geographical denomination.

  11. Jerry Hicks is probably one of the people CIFWatch banned for their lies about Israel and this is his new name

  12. The only peace Abbas and Fatah will accept, is one where Israel becomes Muslim majority ruled.

    Doesn’t Obama and Kerry realize this about Abbas and his fellow Rejectionists.
    They will never agree to any agreement as long as Israel remains a Jewish state”.
    This is just a fact.

  13. Look at all the minorities persecuted in the Arab countries.

    Kurds, Coptics, Black Christians in Sudan, Berbers, Western Sahara, Chaldeans and Bidouns.
    Your probably like, who are the Bidouns?
    Kuwait’s Shame: The Stateless Bidoun
    FEBRUARY 27, 2011

  14. The talks have made no progress because the Palestinian Arabs refuse to accept the FACTS that Israel is a Jewish nation,

    99% of the Palestinian Arabs are not refugees, and the other 1% should have gotten on with their lives years ago, and the Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs expelled from Muslim lands did.

    The Palestinians want 2 Palestinian states and no Jewish state.
    They want a Palestinian state free of Jews and to flood Israel with millions of Arabs for the 2nd Pal state.

    Obama should know, Saying that is it time for the Palestinians to make concessions is the end of the peace talks. Because Palestinians and concessions don’t work together..

    The Palestinians will never experience a civilized culture or community as long as their corrupt, racist, religiously intolerant leaders and elders promote terrorism and hatred towards non-muslims.

    April 4, 2014

    As John Kerry and Barack Obama’s Middle East peace initiative goes through its death throes, reams of obituaries are already being written.
    Already, many are concluding that the cause of death was a breach of the terms of the negotiations by one side or another: it was the Palestinians joining UN-affiliated conventions; no, it was the Israeli announcement of new housing in disputed territory; rather, it was Mahmoud Abbas’s “Three No’s”; of course, it was Israel’s suspension of releasing another round of terror prisoners.

    But those are all merely symptoms. The larger truth is that peace is not a function of John Kerry finding that elusive magic formulation of compromise acceptable to both sides. No, real peace can be achieved when and only when it is in the interest of the parties to achieve it.

    And right now, pessimistic as it may sound, reaching a peace agreement with Israel is not in the interest of the Palestinians. But it is in the interest of the Palestinians to say they want to reach an agreement. Keeping these two principles in mind, one can understand the arc of the peace process, from optimistic beginning to messy flame-out.

    First, the Palestinian leadership has too much riding on the existing conflict to risk ruining it all with a peace treaty.

    Perks of the Palestinian Authority include fawning foreign leaders, international celebrity status, globetrotting to collect more foreign aid than any people in history, and — best of all for politicians — zero expectation of successful governance: “The Occupation” serves as an all-purpose excuse for everything from failure to stop terror to perennial economic basket-case status.

    Billions of dollars in international aid plus rampant graft and corruption have made the leadership wealthy, with Abbas alone having amassed a fortune estimated at $100 million. Much of that aid and that lavish attention would dry up if there were no more conflict with Israel, and the West Bank were just another poor Arab country.

    Of course, another disincentive to peace is the not insignificant risk of assassination of any Palestinian leaders who sign a final peace treaty with Israel.

    Second, even for the larger Palestinian population, peace with Israel creates an existential problem: Palestinian identity has become defined solely in terms of conflict with Israel; how can the Palestinians give up the conflict without giving up the key to their identity?

    The intertwined messages of Palestinian identity run deep. Palestinians see themselves as being in a zero-sum struggle with Zionism (a struggle that pre-dates the creation of the State of Israel). They see Israel as a temporary, illegitimate entity to be overthrown. And unlike other worldwide refugees, Palestinian refugee status is inheritable, an integral part of their identity passed down through generations.

    The entire thrust of Palestinian public culture is of victimhood by and struggle against Israel. From textbooks to television, from schools to summer camps, messages of incitement against Israel are drummed into the populace. Terrorists against Israel are lionised; the most brutal and “successful” murderers of Israelis are honored in the naming of everything from parks and streets to soccer tournaments.

    But by absorbing these messages, Palestinians have painted themselves into a corner, creating only a negative identity. They define themselves not by who they are, but by who they are against. Who are the Palestinian role models? Who are their cultural heroes? Are there any who are not somehow connected to violent struggle against Israel? Outside of the context of the battle with Israel, what does being Palestinian mean today?

    Abbas reportedly issued three “No’s” in his meeting last month with President Obama: no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; no giving up on the “right of return” of millions of Palestinian descendants of 1948 refugees to Israel; and no final end to the conflict with Israel in any agreement.

    Those three “No’s” were no surprise. A “Yes” on any of those issues would give Jewish Israel legitimacy and permanence, and thus would be wholly inconsistent with Palestinian identity. Even though, from a practical standpoint, recognition of a Jewish state of Israel would cost the Palestinians nothing, it would undermine the basic tenets of Palestinianism.

    The Palestinians have been offered a state three times since 2000 on virtually all of the disputed territories. They have rejected each offer. They cannot accept a “two states for two peoples” formula without compromising who they are.

    That is not to say they will not negotiate. A willingness to talk with Israel is the price to be paid for international aid, legitimacy and pressure against Israel. Besides, talking pays dividends. From the Oslo agreement to the current prisoner releases, the Palestinians have won huge concessions from Israel just by negotiating–without giving up any of their core principles.

    Thus, the peace process exists because the Palestinians are willing to make all manner of interim agreements with Israel that give them land or release prisoners. But beyond that point, the process is moribund: in its current form, Palestinianism does not allow for any agreement that permanently ends the conflict in a way that leaves Jewish Israel in place.

    The Kerry/Obama initiative thus joins the crowded graveyard of past efforts to simply negotiate away this intractable dispute. RIP.

  16. 1.6 million Palestinians live in Israel as they were living there when the newcomers arrived from Europe. 700,000 Palestinians were forced to leave. Now who is trying to invent history.

  17. As livni says it is downhill from here onwards for the Israelis and all she can say is they brought it on themsleves.

  18. Fritz you are living in a parallel universe. In this universe, Zionists demanded a Jewsih homeland in Palestine in 1919. Wake up the dream is over. A for what the Palestinian want is just the right of return and live in peace whosoever want to live in their lands. They definately do not want to vacate their houses so that Europeans can come and live their in their exclusive settlements,.

    • YOu forget that half of the jews in Israel are from arab coutnries. They should blame those who rejected it in 1949 and it wasn;t Israel. M ost of them left because they were told to leave. You also forget that Jews were already living in israel when the muslim occupied it in the 7th centuries. No your friends are not phillistines or cannanites.

  19. Facts for the liar Jerry Hicks.

    Research reported by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, stated “the majority of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, but that 68% left without seeing an Israeli soldier.”

    “The Arab exodus from the villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews”
    – Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953

    The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
    – Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

    “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem.”
    – Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

    “Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them to leave… We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave… We have rendered them dispossessed… We have accustomed them to begging… We have participated in lowering their moral and social level… Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon… men, women and children – all this in service of political purposes…”
    – Khaled al Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war

    “The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the ‘Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”
    – Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948

    “The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did.”
    amal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, speaking to the United Nations Security Council. Quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23,1948,p.14

    “As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the [Arab Palestinian] people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property.” – bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957

    “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.”
    – Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

    “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city…By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”.
    – Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, p. 25

    “The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem,
    – Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948

    “The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”
    – from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954

    “The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war.”
    – General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948

    “[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel.”
    – Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

    “Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] …A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. …[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns… [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.””
    – Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz

    “the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision”
    – The Arab National Committee of Haifa, told to the Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

    “The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.”
    – Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31

    “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
    – Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah (“The Secret Behind the Disaster”) by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

    “The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade… He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”
    – Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha’s successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951

    “Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations…. It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.”
    – Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

    “…our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents … Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not bring tragedy upon yourselves by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace, for you and your families.”
    The Haifa Workers’ Council bulletin, 28 April 1948

    “…the Jewish hagana asked (using loudspeakers) Arabs to remain at their homes but the most of the Arab population followed their leaders who asked them to leave the country.”
    The TIMES of London, reporting events of 22.4.48

    “The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States’ opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs.”
    …The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families.”
    – Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948

    “One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC’s threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.”

    “The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa.”
    – London Times, May 5, 1948

    “Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.
    “We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.”
    – David Ben-Gurion, in Israel’s Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948, moments before the 6 surrounding Arab armies, trained and armed by the British, invaded the day-old Jewish micro-state, with the stated goal of extermination.

    “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable”.
    – by Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the article titled: “What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”, published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

    “The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere. . . . At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle.”
    – Ash Shalab (Jaffa newspaper), January 30, 1948

    “The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa.”
    – London Times, May 5, 1948

    “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
    – The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

  20. There is a primary historical fact, that must be established now. There has never been, I repeat NEVER been, a civilization, Entity, or a nation referred to as “Palestine” There was never a Palestinian tribe, and there was never a Palestinian country in the Land of Israel to begin with! Israel is not for sale. It is not a pie to be sliced up and served to a clan of killers and their supporters.

    1: When did Jerusalem serve as a capit0l to any Arab Country? Never.
    2: When did Jerusalem serve as a Palestini0n capital? Never.
    3: Only Israel have had Jerusalem as there capitol.
    4: How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? Zero. Was Mohammed to so badly educated, he could not utter the word “J-e-r-u-s-a-l-e-m”

  21. Even the Israeli left realize Abbas is a Rejectionist.
    Here is an article by well known peacenik Shlomo Avineri
    Don’t expect Abbas to sign anything
    So far, the Palestinian negotiating tactic has been to get concessions, then cut off talks and ‘start where we left off.’
    By Shlomo Avineri
    Feb. 18, 2014

    As prime minister, Ehud Olmert met 36 (or was it 37?) times with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and couldn’t reach an agreement with him. But that didn’t stop him from saying in a recent interview on Channel 2 that he’s certain Abbas is a partner for an accord.

    Olmert was prepared to go further than any other Israeli leader in meeting the Palestinians’ demands, including on the issues of Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and territorial exchanges; he offered to evacuate 70,000 settlers as well as make a humanitarian gesture allowing 5,000 Palestinian refugees (or their descendants) to return. This underscored his belief in the need for Israel to make a painful compromise, and given his own political past, his courage and determination was especially admirable.

    But what came out of all that? When Olmert proposed in dozens of meetings that Abbas sign a document containing the Israeli concessions, he refused. Olmert explains this by saying that Abbas did not say either yes or no. This is patently ridiculous: By refusing to sign, Abbas clearly said no.

    Evidently, Abbas was not ready to commit to anything, but he was able to get Olmert to consent to far-reaching concessions, and then halted the negotiations. The upshot is that when the negotiations resume, the Palestinian side will insist that they must begin “where they left off” – with the starting point being the Israeli positions as set forward in Olmert’s generous proposal, with no concession having been made by the other side.

    Am I misinterpreting things? This is exactly what happened in 1995 in Yossi Beilin’s talks with Abbas. Then, too, the talks led to extensive Israeli concessions; then, too, the Israeli side sought to put things down on paper and fashion a final accord – and then, too, Mahmoud Abbas refused to sign. There was never any Beilin-Abbas Agreement. There was only a paper laying out Israeli concessions.

    At Camp David, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton became fed up with this method and, as he ran out of patience, told Yasser Arafat that so far he had rejected every offer. Perhaps you have a proposal of your own, Clinton suggested to Arafat. But no such Palestinian proposal was ever placed on the table.

    At Camp David, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton became fed up with this method and, as he ran out of patience, told Yasser Arafat that so far he had rejected every offer. Perhaps you have a proposal of your own, Clinton suggested to Arafat. But no such Palestinian proposal was ever placed on the table.

    Waiting for the Palestinian Godot
    Why are we repeatedly surprised every time Mahmoud Abbas fails to sign a peace agreement with Israel?
    By Ari Shavit
    Apr. 24, 2014

    There are some moments a journalist will never forget. In early 1997, Yossi Beilin decided to trust me, and show me the document that proved that peace was within reach. The then-prominent and creative politician from the Labor movement opened up a safe, took out a stack of printed pages, and laid them down on the table like a player with a winning poker hand.

    Rumors were rife about the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement, but only a few had the opportunity to see the document with their own eyes or hold it in their hands. I was one of those few. With mouth agape I read the comprehensive outline for peace that had been formulated 18 months earlier by two brilliant champions of peace — one, Israeli, and one, Palestinian. The document left nothing to chance: Mahmoud Abbas is ready to sign a permanent agreement. The refugee from Safed had overcome the ghosts of the past and the ideas of the past, and was willing to build a joint Israeli-Palestinian future, based on coexistence. If we could only get out from under the Likud’s thumb, and get Benjamin Netanyahu out of office, he will join us, hand in hand, walking toward the two-state solution. Abbas is a serious partner for true peace, the one with whom we can make a historic breakthrough toward reconciliation.

    We understood. We did what was necessary. In 1999, we ousted Likud and Netanyahu. In 2000, we went to the peace summit at Camp David. Whoops, surprise: Abbas didn’t bring the Beilin-Abu Mazen plan to Camp David, or any other draft of a peace proposal. The opposite was true: He was one of the staunchest objectors, and his demand for the right of return prevented any progress.

    But don’t believe we’d give up so quickly. During the fall of 2003, as the Geneva Accord was being formulated, it was clear to us that there were no more excuses, and that now, Abbas would sign the new peace agreement and adopt its principles. Whoops, surprise: Abu Mazen sent Yasser Abed Rabbo (a former Palestinian Authority minister) instead, while he stayed in his comfy Ramallah office. No signature, no accord.

    But people as steadfast as us don’t give up on our dreams. So in 2008 we got behind Ehud Olmert, and the marathon talks he held with Abbas, and the offer that couldn’t be refused. Whoops, surprise: Abu Mazen didn’t actually refuse, he just disappeared. He didn’t say yes, he didn’t say no, he just vanished without a trace.

    Did we start to understand that we were facing the Palestinian Yitzhak Shamir? No, no, no. In the summer of 2009, we even supported Netanyahu, when he made overtures to Abbas with his Bar-Ilan speech, and the settlement freeze. Whoops, surprise: the sophisticated objector didn’t blink, or trip up. He simple refused to dance the tango of peace with the right-wing Israeli leader.

    Have we opened our eyes? Of course not. Again, we blamed Netanyahu and Likud, and believed that in 2014, Abu Mazen wouldn’t dare to say no, not to John Kerry. Whoops, surprise: In his own sophisticated, polite way, Abbas has said no in recent months to both Kerry and Barack Obama. Again, the Palestinian president’s position is clear and consistent: The Palestinians must not be required to make concessions. It’s a complicated game – squeezing more and more compromises out of the Israelis, without the Palestinians granting a single real, compromise of their own.

    Take heed: Twenty years of fruitless talks have led to nothing. There is no document that contains any real Palestinian concession with Abbas’ signature. None. There never was, and there never will be.

    During the 17 years that have gone by since Beilin took that document out of his safe, he’s gotten divorced, remarried, and had grandchildren. I also divorced, remarried, and brought (more) children into the world. Time passes and the experiences we’ve accumulated have taught both Beilin and me more than a few things. But many others haven’t learned a thing. They’re still allowing Abbas to make fools of them, as they wait for the Palestinian Godot, who will never show up.

  23. Israel has made many peace offers, proposals, gestures and opportunities, all of which have been rejected by the Arabs, since 1920. Let us examine why:

    1920, San Remo conference decisions, rejected

    1922, League of Nations decisions, rejected

    1937, Peel Commission proposal, rejected

    1947, UN General Assembly proposal, rejected

    1948, Israel’s stretched out hand for peace, rejected

    1967, Israel’s stretched out hand for peace, rejected

    1978, Begin/Saadat peace proposal, rejected

    1995, Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected

    2000, Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected

    2005, Sharon’s peace gesture, rejected

    2008, Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected

    2009 to 2013, Netanjahu’s invitation to peace talks, rejected

    2014, Obama/Kerry contour for peace, rejected

    The single common denominator of all the above rejections, spanning 94 years, has been the implicit and/or explicit requirement of the Arabs to accept the RIGHT to be, to exist of a sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people on a portion of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. And, since categorically the Arabs reject the Jews’s right to sovereignty on ANY parcel of land of the Jewish people’s homeland, hence the above rejections. This has been and continues to be the essence of Palestinian Rejectionism to its core.
    It is about time all knew and appreciated it.

  24. Palestinian Christian speaks out against Jerry Hicks and Abbas lies.
    Christy Anastas On the Stone Pavement
    April 28, 2014

    Christy Anastas, the 24-year-old woman who has fled the West Bank (where a journalist was recently sentenced to a year in prison for mocking Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas on Facebook), will present herself for inspection at a police station in England on the morning of April 29, 2014.


    Because a self-styled “peace and justice” activist has called the police in England, informing the authorities that she may be a “missing person.” Consequently, Christy will present herself at a police station somewhere in England this morning to assure them that she is not being held against her will.

    That’s the report from Howard Stern, who along with Christy, is a co-founder of the Emmaus Group, an activist organization that promotes awareness of the mistreatment of Christians in Muslim-majority environments. Stern reports the following:

    Christy has lived with my wife and I and our other two grown up kids for two years. We are family. We love her dearly. She is totally part of the family, free to come and go as she pleases. She has friends, drives a car and enjoys church where she helps at youth club. As a family we are all upset by his actions and words as Christy has, is and never will be coerced and forced to do anything she does not want to. We are a Christian household. We are all protective of her and I do chaperone her a lot and speak with her where appropriate but she is strong-minded kid and knows what she wants and what she believes in – taken after her mother in that dept!! [Author’s Note: Christy’s mother, Claire Anastas, is an ardent anti-Zionist activist. More about this below.]
    When the dust settles, Stern hopes to obtain a formal apology from the self-styled “peace and human rights’ activist who called the police in an attempt to “help” Christy.

    In the meantime, Stern writes, “We have reported the matter of his reporting to MPs, our lawyers and senior church officials who we liaise with. Christy will attend a local police station in the morning to confirm all is ok and well.”

    One has to wonder why so-called “human rights” activists have not expressed any concern over the possibility that Christy’s mother, Claire, has been testifying under duress on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

    It’s a real possibility. Claire has been pretty energetic – if not frantic – in her efforts to focus attention on Israel and legitimize the Palestinian Authority. If she has ever said anything critical of the PA or Hamas – two institutions clearly worthy of criticism – it hasn’t gotten much attention.

    In addition to being a favorite of the “peace and justice” types on Twitter, Claire Anastas was a centerpiece in the now notorious 60 Minutes episode that demonized Israel in 2012 and was a prominent source in Yasmine Perni’s 2013 movie, “The Stones Cry Out,” which offers a distorted view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Claire has also spoken at a number of conferences in the U.S. where she has condemned Israel.

    Given the dependence of Palestinian Christians on the Palestinian Authority for their safety, why isn’t anyone asking if maybe Claire’s testimony is being coerced or offered under duress?

    The reason is simple. Christy Anastas’s testimony is a threat to the narrative embraced by Western “human rights” activists who have been serving the interests of a combine of theocrats and kleptocrats in their fight against a self-critical democracy, Israel, for the past few decades.

    Claire’s testimony is exactly what these activists want to hear. Christy’s testimony, by way of comparison, raises the possibility that maybe they have picked the wrong horse in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    No doubt about it, the different treatment received by Christy and Claire Anastas reveals an interesting dichotomy. Palestinian Christian testimony, when it cuts against Israel, is immediately accepted as reliable.

    But now that Christy Anastas, a Palestinian Christian, has done the unthinkable by calling out for the PA for its corruption, violence and ineptitude – which no one really doubts – so-called human rights activists question her mental competence and treat her like she’s a modern-day incarnation of Patty Hearst.

    In the minds of the pro-Palestinian activists who want to “help” her and in the minds of the Palestinian Christians who denounce her, it’s just unthinkable that a sane and rational person could honestly believe what Christy says. And so they describe her testimony as “dodgy.” They imply she has been kidnapped and is being held against her will by evil manipulative Zionists. And if these explanations don’t work, Palestinian Christians come right out and say she has been bought and paid for.

    It’s a form of hysteria, actually. This hysteria is patently evident on the Facebook page of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel, where EAPPI’s “peace and justice” activists have shown they have bought hook line and sinker, the story offered by news outlets in the West Bank. The story told in these outlets is that Christy Anastas was spirited away by operatives working on behalf of a vast Zionist conspiracy who have corrupted her mind and soul.

    One poster offers his version of this narrative as follows:

    If this is as it seems a case of a confused young woman and a zionist organisation showering her with attention and money to undermine the Palestinian story I think this can be exposed to scrutiny. At same time very worrying for family that has ongoing problems. What is being called ongoing stress syndrome as no end in view. If what she needs is other friends and contacts then contact needs to be established if they are operating like a cult. More info needed. Family thinks she is being abused.
    The comments posted by Western activists on EAPPI’s Facebook page walk a fine line between expressions of “concern” for Christy and a desire to portray her as mentally and emotionally incompetent, but the comments apparently posted by residents of the West Bank in response to Christy’s original video on Youtube are downright hateful.

    One of her former school teachers has denounced her.

    Why the violent denunciations from the Palestinian Christians? Why the questions regarding Christy’s mental competence from “human rights” activists?

    Christy Anastas has committed two unforgivable sins.

    First, she has spoken publicly about the ineptitude and corruption of the Palestinian Authority. This is something that Palestinian Christians simply do not do.

    Second, she has exposed the manner in which so-called “human-rights” activists have served the interests of a gaggle of theocratic thugs and kleptocrats who have dominated Palestinian politics for far too long and who sadly, will not be replaced by anyone more competent and honest for the foreseeable future. In a functioning democracy, which the PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat promised Christy that the Palestinians will have, the current crop of leaders would be thrown out of power. But who is there to replace them? Really?

    For her sins, Christy Anastas has been placed before the seat of judgment where she is being denounced by her family and excoriated by Palestinian Christians in the West Bank. And now her friends in the United Kingdom are being subjected to an act of thinly veiled harassment by a “human rights” activist in the United Kingdom.

    When Christy started speaking honestly about the problems in Palestinian society to audiences in Europe (quietly at first and then more publicly), she probably had no idea that she would be scapegoated the way she has been, but now that she has been placed on the stone pavement, the people who have put her there – her fellow Palestinian Christians and “human rights” activists in the West – should hang their heads in shame.

  25. Group Responds to Intimidation
    April 30, 2014

    The Emmaus Group has issued a response to the controversy that began when one of its co-founders, Christy Anastas, spoke in Uppsala earlier this month.

    It reads as follows:

    Released Thursday 30th April 2014

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
    men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
    Over the last two weeks the founders of the Emmaus Group have been subject to a considerable onslaught of accusations and criticism following a speech made by Christy Anastas in Uppsala, Sweden.
    To all those who have been angered or shocked by Christy’s talk we understand your reactions. For too long, violations of Palestinian human rights have taken place internally, unexposed, masked by the popular belief that Israel is the major perpetrator.

    We appreciate the concerns expressed for her safety and wellbeing in the UK. To satisfy these concerns, she attended a British police station yesterday to confirm that she was not being coerced or used by anyone, that she speaks freely of her own will, and that such claims were politically motivated.

    What the Uppsala talk proves, evidenced by the virulent campaign to silence Christy using threats, discrimination and intimidation towards her family, is that there is no freedom of speech in the Palestinian Territories. Her siblings avoid attending education establishments for fear of humiliation. The family have been sworn at and disrespected by the community, and endure a constant stream of abusive phone calls. Crowds have gathered outside her house and tourist organisations in Bethlehem now boycott them. Such actions demonstrate a basic cultural lack of understanding of true freedom of speech.

    However, we have also received great support from people around the world, notably from Palestinians and other Arabs nationals too, who cannot speak out for fear of reprisals,proven by the reaction to Christy’s talk. For any Palestinian resident in the territories to expose the internal problems, discrimination and corrupton, would be extremely dangerous.

    “blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My name’s sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in Heaven……….”

    Matthew 5: 11-12

    Palestinians: Our Blood Is More Precious Than Jewish Blood
    by Khaled Abu Toameh
    April 22, 2014 at 5:00 am

    “We reject all forms of violence… Palestinian blood is like Israeli blood. It is human blood and precious and no one wants anyone killed.” — Mahmoud al-Habbash, Palestinian Minister of Religious Affairs

    “If your blood is like the blood of Zionists, our blood is not.” — Zakariya Zubeidi, former leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade.

    “We call for lifting his [al-Habbash’s] diplomatic immunity and for prosecuting him immediately for his administrative, financial, and political corruption. We also call on President Abbas to fire him immediately from the Palestinian cabinet.” — Mansour al-Sa’di, Fatah leader.

    The angry reactions show that there are many Palestinians who see no problem with a terrorist attack against a Jewish family. Palestinian leaders can blame only themselves.

    A Palestinian Authority [PA] minister who equated Jewish blood with Palestinian blood has been strongly condemned by many Palestinians, including his own family.

    The attacks and threats against PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud al-Habbash serve as a reminder of the extent to which Palestinians have been radicalized over the past few decades.

    The uproar began when al-Habbash, in a meeting with Israeli journalists in Ramallah, was asked about the recent terrorist attack near Hebron that killed police officer Baruch Mizrahi on Passover eve.

    Israeli police officer Baruch Mizrahi (upper right) was shot and killed by a Palestinian terrorist near Hebron on April 14, as he drove to a family celebration with his wife and four of their children. His wife Hadas Mizrahi was shot and wounded.
    In response, al-Habbash said, “We reject all forms for violence, whether they are directed against Israelis or Palestinians. Palestinian blood is like Israeli blood. It is human blood and precious and no one wants anyone killed.”

    Although al-Habbash did not specifically condemn the terrorist attack near Hebron, the Israeli journalists reported that he had indeed denounced the killing of Mizrahi.

    The Palestinian Authority leadership has refrained from publicly condemning the terrorist attack out of fear that such a move would draw angry reactions from many Palestinians.

    The report in the Israeli media about the minister’s supposed condemnation has triggered an unprecedented smear campaign against al-Habbash.

    Within minutes, a photograph of the minister, dressed up as a Jewish rabbi, appeared on many Palestinian websites, making him the public’s number one enemy.

    Al-Habbash’s attempts to deny that he had condemned the terrorist attack have fallen on deaf ears. Many Palestinians appealed to PA President Mahmoud Abbas to fire him and bring him to trial for causing damage to the Palestinian cause.

    In a futile bid to contain the public outcry, the beleaguered al-Habbash told a Ramallah-based TV station, “I didn’t use the word condemn. I only said that the Palestinian leadership rejects all acts of violence.”

    The minister’s family in the Gaza Strip rushed to issue a statement “disowning” him over his purported condemnation of the terrorist attack.

    In the statement, the al-Habbash clan said, “We are proud of the heroic operation in Hebron and of every man and child fighting against the occupation. We disown him and anyone who embraces the despicable Israeli enemy.”

    The family later issued another statement denying that it had disowned the minister.

    The attacks on al-Habbash have come from Palestinians representing all walks of life, including the ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank.

    Zakariya Zubeidi, a well-known former leader of Fatah’s terrorist group, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, called on al-Habbash to apologize to the Palestinians. “If your blood is like the blood of the Zionists, our blood is not,” Zubeidi declared.

    Fatah activists in Jenin strongly condemned al-Habbash’s controversial remarks. “The statements made by Mahmoud al-Habbash about the Hebron operation reflect his own views and not those of Fatah or the Palestinian Authority,” said Fatah leader Mansour al-Sa’di. “We call for lifting his diplomatic immunity and for prosecuting him for administrative, financial and political corruption. We also call on President Abbas to fire him immediately from the Palestinian cabinet.”

    Hassan Khraisheh, Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, also joined the chorus of critics by calling on Abbas to get rid of al-Habbash “because his statements have caused damage to the Palestinians.”

    In yet a further escalation, the minister was forced to cancel a visit to the West Bank city of Tulkarem, where he was supposed to inaugurate a new mosque, after Fatah activists declared him persona non grata.

    The activists carried placards denouncing the minister on the pretext that he had condemned the terrorist attack in Hebron. They also attacked al-Habbash for equating Palestinian blood with Jewish blood. “Anyone who equates the blood of Yasser Arafat and [Hamas founder] Ahmed Yassin and [Islamic Jihad leader] Fathi Shikaki with Jewish blood is an alien and unwelcome,” read one banner.

    Palestinian activists said this week that they were planning to step up their campaign against the minister until Abbas succumbs to their demand to remove him from office and bring him to trial.

    Palestinian Authority leaders such as al-Habbash can only blame themselves for such campaigns. The uproar over the minister’s purported condemnation of a terrorist attack should not come as a surprise to anyone. By glorifying and embracing those who launch terrorist attacks against Israel, the Palestinian Authority leaders lose the right to complain when their people turn against them even when they make ambiguous statements such as, “we reject all forms of violence against anyone.”

    The minister is under attack because Palestinians are convinced that he committed a crime by denouncing a terrorist attack (something the minister himself has denied). He is also under attack for daring to say that he sees no difference between Palestinian and Jewish blood. In other words, the minister’s critics are saying that Palestinian blood is more precious than Jewish blood.

    The angry reactions show that there are many Palestinians who see no problem with a terrorist attack against a Jewish family on its way to celebrate Passover. They also show that many Palestinians are capable of devoting huge amounts of energy to disgorging their hatred and disdain for anyone who dares to speak out against violence or express regret over the spilling of Jewish blood.

    With such sentiments, it is hard to see how U.S. efforts to achieve peace and coexistence could ever bear fruit.‭

  27. “TAQIYYA” = by a religious decree a muslim is allowed to lie in order to deceive the enemies of islam.

    To western ears they say they want “peace” but among themselves they sound quite different don’t they ? WATCH !

    Arafat’s Bodyguard: He Used TAQIYYA and Lied When Denouncing Bombings in Israel
    Palestinian state sponsored Religious Leader on P.A t.v show: “Muslims Will Rule Entire World”

    Hamas T.V:Kill all Christians and Jews “to the last one”

    Dr. Subhi AL-Yaziji dean of Islamic university of Gaza “We Hope to Conquer Andalusia and the Vatican”

    Palestinian ambassador Abbas Zaki on LIVE T.V !
    “The true and final Goal is the end of Israel,but you can’t say that to the world”

    Senior PA official Nabil Shaath: “We’ll Never Accept the Two-States for Two Peoples Solution”

    Fatah official Kifah Radaydeh: “Our true goal has never been peace”

    PA Fatah MP, Najat Abu Bakr: “We will Destroy Israel in stages, in a religious war”

    Palestinian chairman Mahmoud Abbas on live T.V: “we have the same Policies as HAMAS”

    Senior PA official Jibril Rajoub :
    ‘If We Had a Nuke, We’d Use It This Morning’ (Video)
    The Palestinian Authority doesn’t need rocks, firebombs, guns and suicide bombers. Senior Fatah official Jibril Rajoub has a better way to kill Jews: “If we had a nuke, we’d use it this very morning.”
    Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu
    May 9th, 2013
    PLO’s Ten Point Program
    State on ’67 borders is only the first stage says Palestinian ambassador abbas zaki:

    OH Yes..and according to the Obama administration this are the “moderates” Israel is supposed to make peace with ! LOL

    As they like to say “for Allah is the best of deceivers”

  28. Kelso lacks sense of history. Islam is also an Abrahmic faith and many of its disciples are the sons and daughters of Abraham. Kelso, really is not paying any attention. The only Nuke power in the MIddle East today is Israel and it has form. It has bombed Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and is the only one that has used weapons of Mass destruction this century, in Lebanon and in Gaza. It today has in its custody over 5000 Palestinians, including women and children. Please show some respect to people of other faiths. No Muslim would ever think of abusing Jewish Prophets. You would argue that is because they consider themselves to be descendants of Abraham. You would be right but than again get a perspective of history and do not regurgitate the argument that Zionists owned that land two thousand years ago. The Palestinians living in Palestine when the new immigrants arrived from Europe from the end of the nineteenth century, escaping persecution in Europe, found the land was already populated by those who had lived their for thousands of years.

    As for peace, well Palestinians have no honest partner among the Zionists who are actively seeking peace. The breakdown of the latest sham of peace process is roundly blamed on the Israelis even by its own staunch supporter the US.

    • No Muslim would never think of abusing Jewish Prophets. ? Of course not they just tell us Jews that they are actually muslim prophets. Seeing how jews were treated by muslim so many years before anyone heard aobut zionism do spare us the lie that it is only because pf zoionism that they were massacaring Jews
      In the words of Maimonides who wrote a letter to the Jews of Yemen who were being persecuted in 1172 .
      … on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael [that is, Muslims], who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us…. No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have…. We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, their absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear…. We have done as our sages of blessed memory have instructed us, bearing the lies and absurdities of Ishmael…. In spite of all this, we are not spared from the ferocity of their wickedness and their outbursts at any time. On the contrary, the more we suffer and choose to conciliate them, the more they choose to act belligerently toward us.

  29. By the source of the Jenin Hoax here he is
    Shimon Peres in an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on April 9, 2002, under the headline “Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a ‘massacre’ ”. Peres is quoted saying “When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage.”

  30. Now the reality about Jenin – it is only a matter of numbers – but – “Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged.”

  31. By the way – once again another watch organisation is deliberately distorting – Ribat – is not religious war – but – In time, ribats became hostels for voyagers on major trade routes (Caravanserai) and refuges for mystics. In this last sense, the ribat tradition was perhaps one of the early sources of the Sufi mystic brotherhoods, and a type of the later zaouia or Sufi lodge, which spread into North Africa and from there across the Sahara to West Africa. Here the homes of marabouts (religious teachers, usually Sufi) are termed ribats. Such places of spiritual retreat were termed Khanqah in Persian. Some important ribats to mention are the Ribat-i Malik (c.1068-80) which is located in the desert of central Asia and is still partially intact and the Ribat Sharaf from the 12th century which was built in a square shape with a monumental portal, a courtyard, and long vaulted rooms along the walls.[4] Most ribats had a similar architectural appearance which consisted of a surrounding wall with an entrance, living rooms, storehouses for provisions, a watch tower used to signal in the case of an invasion, four to eight towers, and a mosque in large ribats.[5]

    Kelso keep up your propoganda work – it is needed more than ever before – Now that even the US has come to realise the real impediment to peace –

    • Jerry your diarrhoea is very special, your shit is passing thru your keyboard. Seek the help of a specialist urgently.

    • Hamass-lickers quote Wikipedia very selectively.
      Quoting the two paragraphs that talk about ribat as hostels, but not quoting the first paragraph, with the main meaning of the word, the contemporary one (see last sentence):

      A ribat (Arabic: رباط‎; ribāṭ, hospice, hostel, base or retreat) is an Arabic term for a small fortification as built along a frontier during the first years of the Muslim conquest of North Africa to house military volunteers, called the murabitun. These fortifications later served to protect commercial routes, and as centers for isolated Muslim communities. Ribats were first seen in the 8th century. The word “ribat” in its abstract refers to voluntary defense of Islam which is why ribats were originally used to house those who fought to defend Islam in Jihad.[1] They can also be referred to by other names such as khanqah, most commonly used in Iran, and tekke, most commonly used in Turkey.[2]

      Classically, ribat referred to the guard duty at a frontier outpost in order to defend dar al-Islam. The one who performs ribat is called murabit. Contemporary use of the term ribat has been defined as keeping watch and carrying out jihad against infidels and has been used by terrorist groups such as al-Qa’ida.[3]

    • If it is not a religios war than why do muslim object so much to Jews pratying to the temple mount.? Why whenever a sucide bombers was murdering so many Israelis they would call allah is great? Why do muslim countries not arabs who have no borders issues with Israel refuse to have relations with Israel?

  32. Correction: the above mentioned hamass-licker was not only quoting selectively, he was lying, when he wrote “– Ribat – is not religious war –”
    Since our resident hamass-licker likes to invoke Islam and its “respect for other religions”, I’m sure he is aware of the end of verse 61 of Surat Aal Imran:
    لَّعْنَةَ اللّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ
    (the curse of Allah upon the liars)

  33. Jerry Hicks, that cause Shimon Peres only cared about his legacy of Oslo and didn’t care about Israel. Peres also opposed bombing Iraqi’s nuclear facility in 81 and killing Yassin in 04.

    Here’s a great article documenting the Jenin massacre Hoax.
    Jenin. Ten Years Since Something That Never Happened: A Learning Moment for the Guardian
    April 14, 2012

    Jenin: Massacring Truth
    A new documentary explores the damaging myth and underlying media bias against Israel.
    Alex Strachan
    May 29, 2004

    Two years ago, spurred to act by a series of suicide bombings that took the lives of some 87 Israeli citizens and wounded 570 others, the Israeli Defense Force attacked what it believed to be a terrorist stronghold in the heart of the West Bank town of Jenin, a place of densely packed buildings and labyrinthine alleys and home to a close-knit core of Palestinian fighters thought to be responsible for 25 per cent of the bombings.

    What happened that day was said to be a massacre on the scale of Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya, with entire buildings flattened and hundreds of Palestinian civilians killed.

    People around the world assumed this to be true because United Nations aid workers, The Independent, the Times of London, The Guardian, BBC News and a host of other media organizations across Europe reported it to be so.
    “Massacre evidence growing,” a headline on BBC’s website blared on April 18, 2002.

    There was just one small problem. None of that happened.
    The truth would come out eventually, Canadian reporter Martin Himel reports in his new documentary, Jenin: Massacring Truth. But the damage was done.
    The myth of the massacre endures to this day, even though the BBC was backpedalling within days of the initial reports.

    Little more than 10 days after accusations of a massacre were posted on the BBC’s website, British military expert David Holley, a major in the British Territorial Army and military adviser to Amnesty International, was quoted on the same site saying Israel was right to challenge the UN observers’ claims.
    Holley cited numbers closer to “possibly 54 bodies. . . with possibly 20 or 30 unaccounted for.”

    He could not verify those figures until the entire site was cleared.
    Massacre is an overused word, Holley said, and not very helpful in situations like that. Three months later, in August 2002, the United Nations and Human Rights Watch put the final fatality figures at 26 Palestinian fighters, 26 civilians and 23 Israeli soldiers.

    But the genie was out of the bottle, and once out, it would prove next to impossible to put back in.

    The “massacre” is now part of the historical record, promulgated in part by a Palestinian documentary film, Jenin, Jenin, that equated the Israeli incursion into the town with war crimes and ethnic cleansing, and by the refusal of many European journalists who covered the initial story to admit they got the facts wrong.
    Himel chose to make his documentary through the eyes and recollections of an Israeli reservist, Johnathan Van Caspel, a man who has felt the stain of being branded a war criminal.

    Himel managed to get his hands on camcorder footage taken by both Van Caspel’s unit and, remarkably, that of Palestinian fighters in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, to take viewers inside what in actuality was a nasty urban firefight, full of frenzied confusion and near-panic.

    “I tried to put the (viewer) right into what it’s like to fight urban warfare, to be in it,” Himel explained by phone from Israel.

    “The unusual thing in this film is that the fighting was filmed by the fighters on both sides. Today, with these little home video cameras, instead of people taking stills of their buddies in war, they can actually film the war.

    “What I tried to do was put the viewer right in there. And what I mean by that is, it’s confusing. You don’t see the enemy.

    “You don’t know where the bullets are coming from. It’s scary. No one really knows what’s going on. And that’s really what it’s like.”

    Himel wanted his film to reflect both the macro view and the micro view of what happened that day in Jenin.

    The micro view is the personal story of an Israeli reservist who is still mourning the death of friends who died in the heat of battle, their memory stained by lingering accusations of a massacre.

    The macro view is the wider story of how the media cover conflict zones, and how so many journalists managed to get this story wrong.

    “Today, with live TV and instant deadlines and the Internet, in some sense we are demanding clarity of every situation that we see,” Himel said. “But situations like this are very unclear. And because of that, a lot of information you get is also very unclear. This is a classic case.”

    Himel’s film includes interviews with Palestinian fighters in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade who were there at the time — ironically, Himel says, Palestinian fighters are far more forthcoming than many of the journalists he tried to talk to — as well as senior editors at BBC-TV; The Independent’s senior defense correspondent, Kim Sengupta; the Daily Telegraph’s David Blair (who defends his view of events by saying he reported what he saw and merely reiterated first-hand accounts of Jenin residents he talked to); the Toronto Star’s Olivia Ward, who disputes the accuracy of some of the conclusions drawn at the time; and the Times of London’s Janine di Giovanni.

    “The interesting thing is that, of all the people I interviewed, the one thing they all agreed on, without exception, was that where the journalist is coming from, his background, etc., has a big impact on how he reports things,” says Himel.

    “They all say, and I agree with them, that in many respects, objectivity is a fiction. It’s not that we’re not trying to give an accurate picture of what’s going on, but we all come from somewhere. And that’s something we all have to realize.

    “The truth is, though, that some journalists have bigger axes to grind than others, on all sides. And that comes into play here, definitely — especially in a case like Jenin.”

    BBC’s initial reports of a massacre were the most damaging, because BBC is widely considered to be the standard bearer for reportage from the world’s combat zones. BBC News assignment editor Malcolm Downing tells Himel in the film that, because of its reputation, people are naturally inclined to believe that what the BBC says to be true is true.

    “Like everybody, we make mistakes,” Downing tells Himel in the film, “and we try to own up to them when we do. . . The correction is lying behind, though. We never catch up. That’s true of everybody else, as well as us.”

    In an ideal world, Himel says, rival media organizations would take a step back and agree not to jump to conclusions until they have a better grasp on what’s going on.
    “But that’s not going to happen. We’re all going to come up with our stories as fast as possible, especially in the age of live TV.”

    The difference, Himel says, for people who really want to be informed and are willing to make an effort, is whether the reporter’s approach involves a healthy level of skepticism or whether the reporter is willing to accept first-person testimony — ‘I saw this, I saw that’ — at face value.

    BBC showed little skepticism toward initial claims of massacre from the Palestinian side, Himel says, whereas CNN’s domestic service was more circumspect.

    In an interview with Palestinian senior negotiator Saeb Erekat, CNN’s anchor at the time asked if Erekat would return and retract his statement if initial claims of more than 500 casualties proved to be inaccurate.

    “If (Israeli claims of 70 casualties) are right and your initial numbers were wrong, will you come back here on our network and retract what you said?”

    “Absolutely,” Erekat said. “Absolutely. And I hope the numbers will be nothing. I hope the numbers will be zero.”

    In a later interview with Himel, Erekat admitted he made a mistake. “On that day, the Red Cross was not permitted to go to Jenin,” Erekat told Himel. “Foreign journalists were kicked out of the Jenin area. . . Martin, we’ve known each other for the last 25 years. This is the only time I’ve said I’ve made a mistake, in all my interrogations.”

    But first impressions stick, veteran BBC correspondent James Reynolds tells Himel in the film. “Going around the world right now, if one was to ask anyone who watched the news of it, what do they think of Jenin, they think ‘Jenin massacre’,” Reynolds tells Himel.

    “Those two words are linked. First impressions are very important. And perhaps, despite all the other reporting at the end, they are never rubbed out.”

    Himel says he knows critics will question his own point of view before they even see his film. The difference between his film and blanket media coverage of the Israeli incursion into Jenin, he says, is that he went out of his way to get the other side of the story, even going so far as to risk his personal safety by tracking down and querying Palestinian fighters.

    Many European journalists at Jenin didn’t bother to talk to Israeli soldiers and their commanders after the fighting, Himel says, even though they were standing just meters away.

    “I thought it was extremely important to do what these other journalists did not do,” Himel says. “When they were in Jenin, they spoke to Palestinians who gave them a very graphic account, which turned out to be inaccurate. They did not take those graphic accounts and then sit with Johnathan Van Caspel or with the Israeli IDF and really ask them what their side was, and bring an equal version out of it. They didn’t. I really felt that if I was going to put Johnathan Van Caspel’s side out there, I really had to get a hold of the people who were fighting against Johnathan Van Caspel. Which I did. Which is not simple.”

    The controversy over Jenin hints at a deeper, wider issue, however, and that is the entire tone of media coverage on Israel and the Middle East.

    “What’s really going on here is confusing, because the real dialogue is not whether there was a massacre or not a massacre,” Himel says.

    “The real dialogue is: Is Israel or Palestine legitimate or not legitimate? It’s all a matter of point of view. For people who feel Israel is an illegitimate state, it doesn’t matter if it was one person here and two people there. Whatever Israel does is going to be wrong, because it’s an illegitimate country.

    “That’s the real discussion. The massacre thing just echoes the real discussion. Sometimes I say to myself that everything would be better if we just had the real discussion.”

  35. Jerry Hicks, what do you rate this Pallywood production?
    I say it deserves the Oscar.

    My favorite part about Jenin was, once the world saw the Palestinians made up this massacre story, The Palestinians were going to cemeteries and digging up bodies and talking how they were killed in Jenin by Israel.
    Sadly the media bought these lies.

    Watch this video of a supposedly dead Palestinian the PLO said was killed in Jenin until the “corpse” falls off and magically regains consciousness.
    This has to be the Best Pallywood Video of the Year.

    Palestinian Deception: Fake Palestinian Funeral in Jenin, 2002

  36. Jerry Hicks are these the Palestinian prisoners your talking about?
    Op-Ed: PA Prisoners Are Hungry, But For What?
    Arnold Roth
    May 14, 2012

    Fewer (much fewer) than 1% of the Arab prisoners hunger-striking in Israeli prisons are administrative detainees. Almost all were charged, tried and convicted for the most serious offences you can think of.

    The media are filled with reports about a protest strike by Palestinian Arab prisoners and their friends. What’s it about?

    Two terms keep coming up in almost every report: the strikers are “unjustly imprisoned” and it’s a “battle for freedom and dignity”. But this is not about justice or dignity. Those key terms ought to mean something but as happens so often, they have been hijacked in the name of a vicious war and turned on their heads.

    Some of the talking heads say/scream/shout that this is about administrative detention. But fewer (much fewer) than 1% of the Arab prisoners hunger-striking in Israeli prisons are administrative detainees. Reliable statistics we have seen say there are between five and ten such individuals among the 1,500 to 2,000 hunger strikers. [The protestors estimate that overall there are about 300 administrative detainees in the Israeli prison system.]

    The two who began hunger-striking in March are men called Bilal Diab and Tha’er Halahlah who are administrative detainees, held so far for nine months and 22 months respectively. Their petition came before the High Court of Justice on Monday and was heard and rejected.

    The court pointed to the ongoing ties of the petitioners to terrorist funding and terrorism and that they are a clear and immediate security risk to Israeli citizens. It added (which is also significant) that the Israel Prison Service is meeting or exceeding the standards required by international law regarding prisoner treatment already.

    Diab and Halahlah are in fact leaders in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The angry voices are demanding that we think of them as unjustly shunted off to prison for the equivalent of failing to pay for a television license. The media and the ranks of ‘activist’ NGOs are currently filled with such voices.

    Of the other strikers, almost all were charged, tried and convicted for the most serious offences you can think of. Hundreds are in prison for murder. Quite a number of them are unrepentant multiple murderers.

    We are tracking the online news photographs (there are many) being pumped out by the wire services to enhance the global impact of this protest. We ourselves have more than the usual amount of familiarity with some of the names and faces.
    When we look past the sad-faced mothers and the photogenic children in the foreground, what we see (and most others don’t notice) is people like Abdullah Barghouti in the posters at the back. This places the whole affair into a different perspective.

    That particular prisoner (see our post: 10-Apr-07: Regarding Abdullah Barghouti) made the bomb that stole our daughter’s life from us. He has never denied the charges against him. On the contrary, like so many jihadists, he was proud of them before he went to prison; he remains proud of them now.

    That particular prisoner, Abdullah Barghouti, made the bomb that stole our daughter’s life from us.
    He says publicly – on US television, for instance – that he will kill more Jews when he gets the chance. More than that: he regrets that the bombings he carried out did not kill more Jews. In his own unforgettable words, “I feel bad because the number is only 66”.

    Prisoners like Barghouti, and not some mythical jaywalkers capriciously locked up administratively by the vindictive Zionist entity, are the cause for whom the Palestinian Arab protestors and their many supporters are out there shouting and burning tyres. The evidence is there in front of your eyes.

    And if you ask: which editor would want to be seen fanning the flames of protest in support of a convicted psychopath like Barghouti serving 67 life terms, then a partial answer is: maybe the editors at UPI, APF, Daily Star – Lebanon, Scoop New Zealand and numerous others. Click on any of the links int he previous sentence to see pictures of hunger-strike protestors standing in front of Abdullah Barghouti’s grim portrait.

    What would you say to the people demonstrating for rights, justice and dignity for Abdullah Barghouti and the hundreds of other convicted murderous thugs?
    Is theirs the cause that gets you up every morning?

    Is the shortage of cable movie channels in their [prison] lives something that gets your adrenalin going?

  37. Islam is a primitive death cult willing to hide behind its own civilians as human shields. They celebrate death of innocent civilians and of their own.

  38. Hamas and the terrorist organization speak with their actions. On May 1st, Shelly Dadon, 20, from Afulah, was brutally murdered by a Gang of Israeli Arabs who belong to a terrorist organization called “The Galilee Liberators.” She died from multiple stab wounds. This organization was formed by Arab Muslims living in Northern Israel.. They are aligned with Popular Front, the PFLP-General Command, Hamas and Al Aqsa Brigades. Some are allied with the Lebanese Hizballah and al Qaeda. Those groups do NOT want peace, they want the annihilation of Jews and Israel.

    This poor girl is the latest victim in the 65 year war that the Arabs have perpetrated against the Jewish Israelis. Prayers for the family. I hope the murderer is found and executed swiftly. Israel, re-instate the death penalty!

    ‘They Butchered My Daughter’
    Shelly Dadon’s father tells Arutz Sheva that his daughter was apparently killed by terrorists; the murder was heard over a phone call.
    By Hezki Ezra, Ari Yashar

    The father of Shelly Dadon, the 19-year-old resident of Afula whose body was found Thursday in the woods near Migdal Haemek, has spoken for the first time regarding his daughter’s murder, which apparently was committed by a terrorist who fled to a nearby Arab village.

    “We started to worry. At 2 p.m. we realized something happened,” the father told Arutz Sheva, recalling the events of how his daughter went missing after leaving for a job interview. “We contacted the police and I gave a description (of Shelly), and then they told us to come to the station, and I realized something had happened.”

    Regarding the motivation behind his daughter’s murder, he said “I believe it was nationalistic, and still can’t digest (her murder). She was a very responsible girl.”

    “They shouldn’t rest until they find her phone, maybe there are fingerprints on it,” added the bereaved father, noting that she had been in the middle of a phone call with her cousin apparently at the time of the murder.

    While on the phone, Shelly said “there is someone scary here, I’m being strangled!” Shelly appeared to be referring to a woman [extrapolated from Hebrew grammar – ed.].

    “There’s no security in this country,” said Shelly’s father. “My message to parents is not to send your children alone, we don’t digest the fact that in the state of Israel you go to your workplace and don’t come back. They just butchered my girl.”

    The funeral of Shelly Dadon will take place on Saturday after Shabbat, at 10:30 p.m. in Afula’s cemetery.

    “Her first time leaving the house alone”

    Members of Shelly’s family are currently mourning the loss at the Dadon home in Afula.

    “She was a blossoming young lady,” one family member stated. “This was her first time leaving the house alone.”

    The Shin Bet is still hunting for the killer, who as noted apparently fled to a nearby Arab village; police have stated their belief that the murder was nationalistically motivated – a terror attack, not a criminal act.

    Despite that, Shelly’s cousin Alon noted there has been a remarkable lack of condemnation of the attack from Israel’s government.

    “I want every MK to know what is going on here,” he said. “If this had been a ‘price tag’ graffiti incident, the whole State would have been up in arms. But when a young girl is murdered on her way to a job interview, they are all silent.”

    “We demand that they bring [the killer] to justice,” he added.

    By contrast, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and others were swift to condemn an alleged act of “price tag” vandalism earlier this week, especially in light of a damning report from the US State Department over the “Jewish terrorism.”

    Netanyahu called the latest attack “outrageous,” vowing, “we are using ISA (Shin Bet) resources for this purpose.”