A Guardian letter – and why anti-Zionism equals antisemitism

What’s been called the Knife Intifada began last year in early October, when Mohammad Halabi went on a stabbing rampage in Jerusalem’s Old City, killing Nehemia Lavi, 41, and Aharon Banito, 21, and wounding Banito’s wife and baby

On May 2nd, the Guardian published a letter (in response to an op-ed by Jonathan Freedland about the current antisemitism row within the Labour Party) by Kamel Hawwash, a British Palestinian activist who not only rejects Israel’s right to exist, but recently referred to the terrorist murderer Halabi as a ‘martyr’.

Hawwash, Vice Chair of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, referred to Halabi as a martyr while speaking at a Palestinian Return Centre event in Parliament last month.  Here’s the transcript posted at the blog Harry’s Place. (Audio is here)

“Now this was posted on Facebook by Mohammad Halabi one of the first people, martyrs of the current intifada starting in October, now I call him a martyr because I am speaking from a Palestinian perspective. 

Hawwash’s letter in the Guardian print edition, though titled ‘A Palestinian view on the antisemitism row’, says almost nothing about antisemitism save a predictable plea that anti-Zionism (the rejection of a Jewish state within any borders) is NOT antisemitic.

Mostly, Hawwash ignores the substance of Freedland’s call to the British left to avoid antisemitism by simply ‘treating Jews the same way they’d treat any other minority’, and uses the 445 words given to him to erase the Jewish connection to the land, call for a “right of return” for “refugees” from 1948 and the end of Jewish sovereignty – an anti-Zionist position he euphemistically refers to as “reconciliation” via the implementation of a “very different political arrangement in historic Palestine”.

Even leaving aside the likely antisemitic motivation of those who call for the end of the the Jewish state (and only the Jewish state), the antisemitic impact of such an anti-Zionist view extends beyond the unimaginably injurious consequences for more than six million Jewish citizens of Israel.  As Freedland pointed out in his op-ed, a 2015 poll revealed that 93% of British Jews say that Israel forms a part of their Jewish identity.

When you use tropes and narratives suggesting that Zionism represents a unique evil, one that should be purged from the world, you’re in effect saying that Jewish identity itself is essentially corrupt, immoral and malevolent.

So, as much as anti-Zionist activists in the UK likes to claim otherwise, an attack on Zionism – i.e., the rebirth of a Jewish state in their historic homeland – is necessarily an attack on British Jews.

Though we’ve been critical of Freedland in the past, he hits the nail on the head:

On the left, black people are usually allowed to define what’s racism; women can define sexism; Muslims are trusted to define Islamophobia. But when Jews call out something as antisemitic, leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they’re wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

The left would call it misogynist “mansplaining” if a man talked that way to a woman. They’d be mortified if they were caught doing that to LGBT people or Muslims. But to Jews, they feel no such restraint.

So this is my plea to the left. Treat us the same way you’d treat any other minority. No better and no worse. If opposition to racism means anything, it surely means that.

Anti-Zionists like Hawwash will have to deal with this undeniable truth: If you insist on calling for the political or physical destruction of the world’s only Jewish state, no amount of pseudo-intellectual sophistry or faux progressive rationalisations will change the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews will define you as a racist.

119 replies »

        • “Should” is the operative word here. I still feel giddy that uppity Brits are fuming about Israeli interference.

        • No Bellamy outside Israel the actions of an Israeli Labour MK (btw he is the leader of the Labour Party and the opposition) is irrelevant. And do you think that you and your comrades hate spewing and the present Jew-hating clown – you fuehrer Corbyn has any relevance in Israel? Then let me surprise you – apart from some politicians and diplomats he has the significance of a clyster administered to a cadaver. I want to assure you that 99.999% of the Israeli population never ever heard his name or heard of the UK Labour Party.
          The only reason of Herzog’s intervention – it is a benevolent warning for the Leader and your fellow travelers that you are responsible for any action against Jews living in the UK and in case they will be hurt you will be punished. And believe me this punishment will be very severe.

          • Bellamy, very few people outside of your immediate family (if you have one) care about what you say, or think, or do, and certainly no one in her/his right mind should. And yet you keep bleating on.

        • “do you think anyone should give a flying fuck what an Israeli Labor MK says ? ”

          I do. I should think you’d want help and good advice from wherever it comes. Israel’s Labor Party is interested in saving British Labour from its self-destructive behavior so it can once again join civilized Labor organizations all over the world, and not be the pariah party it’s turning into, i.e., save you from yourselves. Why? Aren’t you grateful for the meddling?

    • And we need to know about your scribblings because … ?
      What a pompous little man you are.

      • Leah, please don’t be unkind to Webber.
        He is only a young boy just out of short trousers.
        So this week he imagines he is a journalist, in the next week or so he will probably imagine he is an Astronaut, or a Racing Car Driver.
        Then some time in the future he might grow up become an adult and get a proper job, perhaps even stop living off Mummy And Daddy.

        • Perhaps you ought to tell the Sunday Times that I’m not a journalist, because they seem to be of the opinion that I am… (At least their accounts department is.)

          • Webber so you think the money you get for doing a paper round makes you a journalist?
            It will not be the first mistake an Accounts Dept. has made and it definitely will not be the last.

            Now off you go up the wooden hill, there’s a good little boy.

            • No, I think the money I was paid for writing a news article makes me a journalist. As it did when other publications have paid me. As does my UK Press Card and membership of the CIOJ. As does the recent court ruling confirming that I’m a journalist.

              But obviously you know better than all that, right, Gerald?

              • Now, now Webber having a temper tantrum is not good for you.
                If you carry on you will have to go and sit on the naughty step.

              • Webber Lord Haw-Haw was a journalist? He was gainfully employed by the public radio in Germany and I’m sure had a press card. If you really think that having a press card and being paid for writing for politically motivated media makes you a journalist then you are more stupid and narcissistic what I thought before. And believe me this is a bigger achievement than having a press card.

                  • The usual answer of every asshole who doesn’t have any argument. Webber you must have a lot of time on your hands for changing browsers (or computers) to play with the upvoting and downvoting posts in order to satisfy your narcissism on the level of a five years old child so seems to me the media is not too eager to ask from you for more articles. Have you ever considered the possibility that ordinary readers will consider this action utterly laughable – even moronic? You should.

                    • Webber nothing sounds as silly as your farcical claim that you have a “court ruling” confirming that you are a journalist.

                      Webber a name that inspires mirth and derision.

                    • You don’t know?! So you are not only a moron but a liar as well. No surprise here, these two are common characteristics of every Israel haters especially of Jewish Israel haters.

              • Webber out of interest you claim to have a “recent court ruling confirming that I’m a journalist.”
                So why did you need a court ruling to confirm that you are a journalist?

                Or, as I strongly suspect, are you referring to a decision about the Freedom of Information Act in which you are referred to as The Appellant, Mr Gabriel Webber a freelance journalist. By any stretch of the imagination that is NOT a court ruling confirming that you are a journalist.

                Now stop adding telling lies to your temper tantrums or your pocket money will be stopped.

                  • Webber you are just digging yourself deeper into the shit.
                    Your failed attempt to twist and use a ruling on the FoI Act relating to former Prime Minister’s continuing expenses as a “court ruling confirming you are a journalist” is a sure sign of your immaturity and confirmation, if any were needed, that you are not a journalist.

                    Off you go, there’s a good boy your lies are getting increasingly tedious.

                    • As I say, if you think Judge Dhanji made an incorrect finding of fact, you are at liberty to challenge her ruling – and if you’re right, no doubt you’ll win.

                    • Webber you are dancing around the fact that your claim of a “court ruling confirming I’m a journalist” is not true.
                      You can claim whatever you like, your own fantasies you believe it to be true but the reality is there for all to read in spite of your continuous attempts at obfuscation.

                      As I wrote above you can claim to be a journalist, or an Astronaut or a Racing Car Driver.
                      Now be a good little boy and go and do your homework.

                    • “Glad to be of service”

                      Webber if you want to be of service why not start by writing a website with humour, rather than that turgid horseshit you throw together at the moment?

                      Webber a name to inspire gales of laughter whenever it is seen or heard. That is laughter AT you Webber, not with you.

              • If you are a journalist Webber according to the UK licensing authority then this profession must be in a deep shit in your country, a journalist who bothers with up voting himself and down voting his opponents multiple times… The intellectual level of a nursery. A perfect match to the Guardian and co.

                  • Yeah, Zionists are dumb enough to have invented a lot of the computer parts that you are using.

                    Jeez. Anti-Zionists are dumb, but so are all racists.

                  • Jeez, Socialists are dumb….LOL. But then again, so are all fascists, racists, jihadis, terrorists, head choppers, throat cutters, [b]”honour”[/b] killers..

    • Adam why are you letting self-promoting advertisements on UKmediawatch by Margrain and Webber?
      And Webber there are not enough click on your crap? Maybe you are too stupid for the Huff’s readers who would eat any anti-Israel crap like hyenas of their own vomit.

    • I read your Huff Post article, Gabriel, and agreed with all of it until you said that Malia Bouattia was “being criticised because she had a history of making anti-Semitic remarks grossly offensive to the Jewish community”. As I recall her remarks were about Zionists/Zionism, apart from noting the large size of a university Jewish Society. You appear to be guilty of making up your own definition of antisemitism in a way that you criticise in Freedland.

      • Sencar and Webber… Webber and sencar… the shining lights of the Jew hating scum masquerading as warriors for Palestinain rights are arguing about the rantings of each other.

      • You may try to differentiate between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as much as it suits your agenda, but in the end, they’re intertwined as your “heroes” continuously show.

      • When you say you disagree that Malia was criticised for making remarks grievously offensive to the Jewish community, do you mean (i) you disagree that her remarks were actually grievously offensive to the Jewish community, or (ii) you disagree that that was the reason for the criticisms, or (iii) both of the above?

        • Anyone can take offence – it’s becoming quite fashionable, amongst Islamist bigots as well as their Zionist equivalents. So I accept that some Jews took offence at Malia’s statements but would dispute that what she said amounted to antisemitism.

            • Errm no, Gabriel. I I disagree with your assertion that her remarks were antisemitic.

                • I’m not sure that she was “disappointed”. The comment was ill-advised (rude if you like) but not antisemitic as such. Ken’s offerings were wildly damaging to himself and his party and completely uncalled for, although there is a smidgen of truth in them and Ken is not antisemitic in my understanding of the term.

                  • ‘and Ken is not antisemitic in my understanding of the term.’
                    Your understanding of the term is not relevant. What is relevant is how the vast majority of Jews see the matter. If you want expert advice ask a plurality of Jews. If you want to know what is offensive to blacks you don’t ask the Guardian or the Labour Party for their definition. You ask someone with a black skin.

                    • “What is relevant is how the vast majority of Jews see the matter”

                      Not so, Margie. As I said elsewhere on this page anyone can take offence, and many do for the most spurious of reasons. Anti(any group)ism is essentially about hatred of, or discrimination against, any category of person because of who they are and not because of what they do or what they think. Criticism of Zionism is about what some Jews do or think, not about who they are.

                    • sencar obviously you don’t get it. Whether you and comrades are antisemites or not is totally irrelevant, you want six and half million Israeli Jews dead. Until this dream of you can be satisfied by Jew-baiting on the internet or on party meetings, in pubs or in whatever community of pathetic losers you frequent apart from wasting the oxygen and spoiling the gene pool you are not a threat only for the Palestinians you are sending to die and suffer in your name. For your own sake try to remain in this category.

                    • Criticism of Islamofascism is about what some Muslims do or think, not about who they are.

                      Not all Muslims are Terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

                      See 9/11, Londons 7/7, Charlie Hebdo, Super Kacher, Bataclan, Brussels, beheading of Lee Rigby, Daniel Pearl, James Foley, bombing of Pan Am 103, Metrojet, Boston, San Bernardino, Copenhagen, Amsterdam (Theo Van Gogh), Sydney, Fort Hood, Garland Texas, DC Beltway, …

                • Gabriel she did not express disappointment that B/Uni had a large J Soc. She lamented that such a large J Soc was dominated by Zionists. But you knew that already.

    • I did take the time (a few minutes) to read your post in which you trivialise “the Macpherson Definition, so called after retired judge William Macpherson who conducted the 1999 Stephen Lawrence Inquiry into institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police:

      A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

      The reason for this Inquiry was because of the tragic murder of a Black teenager, brutally murdered by “white” racists. What compounded this horrific murder was the way in which Stephen’s friend, who was also Black, was treated “as if” he was the perpetrator, rather than a traumatised witness to the horrific murder of his friend. That this was done by the Police, was seen as unforgivable, given the circumstances.

      Your attempt to “deconstruct” or mock the definition of “a racist act” was neither amusing nor respectful, given the context of both the murder of an innocent Black youth because of his “Black-ness”; or the way you mock antisemitism and antisemitic acts on Jews just because of their “Jewish-ness.”

      It is difficult to believe you are unaware of “The Livingstone Formulation” by David Hirsh in which he demonstrates, that when a Jew makes the claim of “antisemitism”, it can be dismissed by non-Jews as Jews acting in “bad faith”, “exaggerating”, “crying wolf” (interestingly, and as an aside, these comments were noted in Memos written by the British Home Office during WW2 about Jews in relation to the Holocaust). You seem “insensitive” that today, if a “person of colour” claims an act to be racist, it is accepted. However, if a Jew makes the claim of racism, it can be easily dismissed and has been on numerous occasions (see David Hirsh, Ronnie Fraser and the UCU). In other words, Jews are treated differently and in my view, this is antisemitic.

      The late Primo Levi wrote, “that to confuse murderers with their victims is a moral disease, or an aesthetic affectation or a sinister sign of complicity; above all it is a precious service rendered (intentionally or not), to the negators of truth.”

  1. Professor Hawwash politely suggests that the solution is the disappearance of Israel after the Jews first grovel and apologize.

    Another Arab living in cloud cuckoo land. He would be better of shouting his delusions at Speaker’s Corner than wasting valuable pixels on line.

    I’m not surprised the Guardian posted his letter, however – how well it matches the beliefs of Viner and her motley crew.

    You can find more of his amazing insights at:

    Kamel Hawwash is a British/Palestinian engineering Professor based at the University of Birmingham and a long standing campaigner for justice. He is Vice Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and appears regularly in the media as commentator on Middle East issues. He tweets at @kamelhawwash and blogs at

    In real life, when he descends from the clouds, he teaches civil engineering in Birmingham, where he is a Professor (another “Palestinian” who has suffered terribly at the hands of the Jews despite being a UK citizen and professor (the horror of it all)!). If his students are taught theories as ethereal as his political ideas – don’t step on bridges they design!

    • He must be an expert of tunnel construction using concrete sorely needed for the homeless Gazans….

    • ” Kamel Hawwash is… a long standing campaigner for justice.”

      Some examples? And if so, why publish a letter by him demonstrating the opposite? Is the Guardian pulling a fast one? Yes.

    • sencar tells Margie that a stop sign is a green light, water is dry and sand is for drinking, the sky is green and the trees are blue, and that genocidal antisemitism is a criticism of Israeli policy.
      sencar, how much acid did you do?

  2. It’s interesting. If you paint a scenario to a leftist of Native Americans being dispossessed in history and scattered into Europe, only to be persecuted for centuries culminating in a genocide – and ask them, would they support a small piece of land being allocated to them in their ancestral North American homeland, 100% of them would say yes.

    As soon as you change those Native Americans to Jews, leftists say no.

    • Maybe you don’t know much about America. There are currently Reservations across our nation that is specifically set up to keep the Natives IN their territories (and subsequently AWAY from our city centers). And nobody but the actual Native Americans seems to care about that.

      • Irrelevant. The premise is spot on as far as lunatic British ‘progressives’ are concerned.

        • Uh…. His comment was specifically about North American Natives. “and ask them, would they support a small piece of land being allocated to them in their ancestral North American homeland, 100% of them would say yes.”

          Maybe we have a different interpretation of the word Relevant?

          • See, what I was saying was that Native Americans ALREADY have a portion of their ancestral homeland. And guess what? They’re trapped there. Add to that how everybody in America who isn’t trapped there (i.e. non-Natives) doesn’t really know much of what goes on in the Reservations– because of the Reservation autonomy from the US– that our students out here, who are complaining about what goes on in Israel (over there), are clueless as to the real crime of their very own government.

            See, I neither agreed nor disagreed with the OP. My comment was to further highlight the hypocrisy of those OP targeted, and you clearly missed the point. Party on. Excellent.

            • This being a message board and all, one can make do what is capable of. I agree, some of you are always looking to shit on Left leaning folk. Especially the self-proclaimed Moderates among us who, somehow, think that Obama is a Muslim from Africa.

              When you chaps on the other side of the ocean speak of America and its Leftists, it’s clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I am here to help you get to know what you are talking about when it comes to America’s Leftists. Why do I do this? Because I’m American, I’m pretty far Left, and even if I’m “moderate” to some because I support Israel and her rights to exist and self-defense, I have a lot more far left leaning folks and can actually communicate pro-Israel points with them.

              But, yes, back to reading comprehension. Most of the time, Kinory, I see you as an idiot.

                • More Klassic Kinory Kreativity (TM)! If this is called UK Media Watch, Pillock, then why did Ben Paulsden bring up American college students? Does he know how wrong he is to (gasp) provide his opinion?

                  Not only did he not have a point, he never should have brought up the point he never had, amiright? And I’m just such a bastard, and dare I add stupid enough to entertain the notion that I could actually provide some info on his supposed point. That’s how much of a real true Asshole I happen to be.

                  But that’s how they raise us out here. You guys have Queens and Kings and Little Baby Princes which you have to entertain their entire lives. We Americans just have to deal with freaks like Ted Cruz for 8 months of their miserable lives. We’re rebels, John. We don’t follow the rules.

                  We make ’em.

                  And today’s rule? John Kinory = Master Baiting Douchebag

                  • What an infantile low-IQ prick you are, Mr Alphabet Soup.
                    The point was that UK lefties would be all ‘caring’ about the Native Americans, in order to prove how ‘progressive’ they are, but not so much in an analogous situation involving Jooz.
                    Now do you get it, infantile low-IQ prick?

                    • “It’s interesting. If you paint a scenario to a leftist of Native Americans being dispossessed in history and scattered into Europe, only to be persecuted for centuries culminating in a genocide – and ask them, would they support a small piece of land being allocated to them in their ancestral North American homeland, 100% of them would say yes.”

                      “Maybe you don’t know much about America. There are currently Reservations across our nation that is specifically set up to keep the Natives IN their territories (and subsequently AWAY from our city centers). And nobody but the actual Native Americans seems to care about that.”

                      I think these paragraphs go together. At this point, I can see the Leftist as being a generalized one– the Global Leftist, which from my time on the web, apparently includes vegans, gun control advocates, Bernie Backers, and the Castros– and yet the argument still discusses the hypothetical Native American, dispossessed and scattered about America. Which my comment corrected, saying in effect that no hypothetical argument is necessary since there’s a very real, very current situation happening.

                      P.S. John, you’re truly adorable when you flip the fuck out. I love to get your responses. Now, as you might say, “Argle bargle, barfy barf [fart]… Ameri-blahhhhhhhhh….”

  3. 1 As far as many Palestinians are concerned the creation of the Jewish state was a colonialist exercise culminating in attempted ethnic cleansing. Seen in this context Professor Hawwash puts his case moderately. Of course you don’t agree with him but his position is hardly surprising and there is no reason to describe him or other like-minded Palestinians as antisemitic. If their land had been taken over by little green men they would still seek to reverse that takeover. The racial characteristics of the usurpers are irrelevant.

    2 Freedland writes a lot of sense on many subjects but his argument that only Jews should be able to define antisemitism or Muslims Islamophobia is clearly absurd. Some Muslims would regard speaking against the Caliphate or sharia law as Islamophobic, others wouldn’t. Jewish views on antisemitism also vary widely; David Baddiel recently denied that one-staters are necessarily antisemitic, for example, not a view that would be widely shared by UK Media Watchers.

    • 1.a. Ethnic cleansing does not occur when a population increases.
      1.b.. Jews have inhabited the land of Israel in its entirety since before there were any Arabs whatsoever. Therefore your premise of “their land” is also false.
      1.c.. There is no other state in the world for which obliteration is a rallying cry.
      2. You then also support men defining what constitutes sexism when it is directed at women.

      • 1a Ethnic cleansing occurred in 1947/8 when at least two thirds of the Palestinian population were killed or expelled. Population increases since then are a different matter altogether.
        1b The inhabitants of any territory change many times over the centuries. The idea that Jews have a unique claim to Palestine is clearly absurd, unless you appeal to promises made by God of course – in which case further discussion is pointless.
        1c I would not call for Israel’s obliteration, just for its being a state for all its citizens (like any other modern state), not just for Jews.
        2 I suggest you read Gabriel Webber’s Huff Post article (link elsewhere on this page). He trashes the idea that groups should come up with their own definition of racism/sexism etc very effectively.

        • Wrong again.
          1.a. Arab armies invaded and Arabs fled. That does not qualify as “ethnic cleansing” unless, of course, you wish to blame Arabs.
          1.b. In that case, Arabs do not have a valid claim to the land as Jews now own the land in the latest chapter of history.
          1.c. If you have not heard anyone call for Israel’s obliteration, then you live in a vacuum.
          2. As I’ve said above, I’ve read Webber’s drivel before.

          • @Michael –

            1. RE: “Arab armies invaded and Arabs fled”. I can find only one major historian (Ephraim Karsh) who still sticks so doggedly to that outdated hasbara narrative. Even the most “loyally-minded” Zionist academics now seem to concede that thousands were either physically driven out by Israeli soldiers/militias or fled for fear of them. There may be differences of opinion about exact numbers, but almost all apparently accept that those Arabs who left for the reason you give were a minority. (If you can access Haaretz, see for contemporary perspectives based on mounting information.)

            2. RE: “Arabs do not have a valid claim to the land as Jews now own the land in the latest chapter of history.” I rather doubt you’d take that view if the NEXT “chapter of history” happens to boot the Jews out! Ownership might be nine-tenths of belligerent law, but it’s the other tenth (as the various chapters of Jewish history perfectly illustrate) which prompts repeated military and moral challenges to the “rulership by virtue of conquest” status quo.

            • “I can find only one major historian (Ephraim Karsh) who still sticks so doggedly to that outdated hasbara narrative.”

              No way! I’m totally shocked!!

              And to think, up until now, you had the reputation of being such a hard nosed detective, always finding relevant points, and, of course, avoiding smears of your intellectual opponents.

              Gosh…. I feel like fool!

              • If only the Jews didn’t dominate the publishing industry in which they promote the Zionist narrative, right Miranda? Or if only Jews weren’t hired at the Universities where they have the audacity to pepper the young, impressionable minds with such historical bullshit like the Zionist narrative, right Miranda? Luckily, my favorite book on the subject of Israel’s right to exist, From Time Immemorial, wasn’t written by a Jew. But that’s we how Jews work, see. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. You just have to be…. published by a Jew, right Miranda?

                Listen, I know you don’t think you’re a small minded, hate fiend freak, but the reality of what you write says otherwise.

            • Hasbara … blah, blah … ethnic cleansing … blah, blah … massacring Zionist Nazis … blah, blah … Haaretz, the objective and completely non-antisemitic reliable objective publication, says so … blah, blah …

              Even by your admission, mad cow (“thousands … fled for fear of them”), thousands of Arabs FLED. So?

              Cretins like you support UNRWA in order to make them and their descendants refugees forever. So, piss off.

              • @leah27z –

                “Even by your admission… thousands of Arabs FLED. So?”

                Yes, a very fair point, Leah … in just the same way that you’d no doubt think “thousands of Jews FLED. So?” was a fair point from some couldn’t-give-a-damn bastard commenting on Russian pogroms or the terrors of Germany.

                • Did Jewish armies invade Russia and Germany in the interwar period, Miranda? For that matter did Israel invade North Africa in 1948 forcing 800,000 Jews to flee?

                  • @Michael –

                    “Did Jewish armies invade Russia and Germany in the interwar period…?


                    “…did Israel invade North Africa in 1948 …?


                    But what on earth these questions have to do with my objection to Leah’s double-standards regarding people driven to FLEE totally escapes me.

            • @Miranda. 1. How about the Syrian Prime Minister at the time?
              “Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” So much for your outdated propaganda narrative. And BTW, a question or investigation does not constitute the “most loyally-minded Zionist academics.”
              2. Thank you for showing your ignorance and the fact that the Ottomans liberally re-assigned ownership of property to their liking.

              • @Michael –

                RE: “How about the Syrian Prime Minister at the time…?

                There’s one big flaw in simply citing “calls” Arab leaders say they made – and that’s a lack of evidence (either way) on how INFLUENTIAL such calls were. One researcher who was tasked to assess this – by David Ben-Gurion, no less – was Rony Gabbay. And here’s what the Haaretz article I linked above reports:

                ‘As part of his research, Gabbay read Intelligence Corps transcripts of local radio broadcasts of propaganda aimed at the local population by the Arab armies that operated in Palestine. The broadcasts, Gabbay says, did not support the Israeli claim about the part played by the Arab and Palestinian leaders in the flight. “There was no mention of the local Arab leaders urging the Arabs to flee, that they ‘pushed them,’ as we claimed in our hasbara. I saw nothing like that.” It is noteworthy that Benny Morris, who researched the subject 20 years later, also found no directives by Palestinian leaders or Arab rulers calling on the villagers to leave…’

                In other words … no matter what Syria’s Prime Minister might have been “calling for”, his message seems not to have got through to any significant extent – if at all – at ground level.

                The Jewish Virtual Library could do its readers a valuable service by at least NOTING these findings – but I’m not holding my breath

                • I have a better idea, how about hearing it from Palestinians themselves.

                  Furthermore, not all conversations are recorded as when an army colonel enters a village and tells residents to leave by word of mouth. Otherwise, anything that you say that has not been recorded is in dispute.

                  And by the way, JVL cites their sources. They use something called a “footnote.” In this case it’s the number 33 in superscript. As a supposed researcher (of course, we only have your word on that) It’s rather embarrassing that you don’t know what a footnote is.

                  • @Michael –

                    1. Being urged to leave a battle”frontline” and being advised that the fighting would last “for two hours” are hardly likely to have prompted an immediate mass exodus right out of the country. What was needed for this to happen was SUBSEQUENT removal of the defeated villages’ populations. And that was precisely what the victorious Israelis chose to do.

                    2. I wasn’t saying the Jewish Virtual Library failed to provide “footnotes”! I said it failed to “note” (i.e, make mention of) research developments such as those recorded in the 2013 Haaretz article.

                    • 1. Ok, so an army colonel comes to your village and tells the people to get out and they say “ho hum.” Riiiiight! And by the way, I challenge you to provide CREDIBLE evidence of the Israeli army removing village populations after the war when the Israelis were victorious.

                      2. You don’t have a problem with Ha’aretz not providing these recorded testimonials. Gee, I wonder why.

                    • I know this is hard to understand, Poopy Head, but you’re not an authority on the Arab Middle Eastern thought process circa 1947.

                      To which I shall add, You are a fucking idiot, MIranda.

            • Miranda,

              1. Are you disputing that Arab armies invaded fledgeling Israel in 1948 to put an end to Jewish independence? Are you disputing what every newspaper at that time was writing daily about the Arab threats to Jewish independence, and Jewish existence in the land of Israel? Have you ever looked at those newspapers? Your comparison of the fleeing Arabs to pogroms in Russia or the Nazis in Germany is another piece of the typical propagandistic obscurantism found in such abundance amongst “pro-Palestinian” “social justice warriors.” There were no Jewish armies threatening an independent Russia or Germany from coming into existence. This is a fact you would never mention, because it destroys your whole argument. Facts destroy your arguments. That’s right, this machine kills fascists.
              The simple fact is that most Arabs fled. Jewish armies were never going to drive most of them out. They didn’t need to. If the Arabs had accepted partition the UN fully expected a majority of Arabs to voluntarily leave Jewish areas rather than be ruled by Jews, and that Jews would leave Arab ruled areas rather than be ruled by the Arabs. Your 1948 ism is a historical dead end. Many countries have fought wars of independence. The only thing you can use Israel’s (defensive) war of independence for is to apply a double standard to Israel, and by extension Jews. Also note that in those areas conquered by the Arabs there were no Jews left. None. Also notice that the Palestinian desired state has the same plan, the same M.O.

              2. You did realize, didn’t you, that Michael was using a “turnabout as fair play” argument against the supreme idiocy of sencar, Prince of Darkness, no? If not, perhaps you should find a line of work more suited to your particular talents, e.g., the hind quarters of a horse.

    • ” If their land had been taken over by little green men they would still seek to reverse that takeover. The racial characteristics of the usurpers are irrelevant.”

      Really sencar.
      So tell me exactly what they did when ‘their land’, Jerusalem and the West Bank was taken over by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Gaza by Egypt?

    • sencar,
      There is nothing moderate about the “Palestinian” cause. And yes, it is antisemitic. One might notice its maximum ambitions concern those lands from the truncated 1922 Mandate and nothing further, based on a map that had never before existed in history, but which was for a Jewish Homeland. Figure it out. Duh.

  4. Sencar and Webber supports Jew-haters. A common, logical and natural everyday event no reason to be surprised..

  5. Freedland seems to be stupid enough (or cynical enough?) to forget the significance of his own contribution to the present explosion of Jew hate in the British left establishment.

  6. People reading this page might not realise that Hawwash’s was the _only_ letter published on Labour’s antisemitism woes in The Guardian’s print edition today – and _none_ were printed yesterday.

    I suppose that the latest example of the regular speaking-as-a-Jew hate round robin was too nauseating for even The Guardian to publish