A Fresh Perspective: A critique of Palestinian nationalism

[question everything]

(snip)

Historically, the idea of a Palestinian nation is very new. For some time, Palestine was merely a geographical area – not a national identity. There were Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Beduin and Palestinian Jews. These terms simply referred to Arabs, Beduin or Jews living in the geographical region of Palestine.

(snip)

One argument is that the history of Palestinian nationalism is not very important; if Palestinian nationalism exists today, then that is what matters. This would be true if we did not have modern evidence of Palestinians not identifying as a separate nation, but rather seeing themselves as part of the Arab nation and specifically denying any real Palestinian nationalism.

(snip)

Indeed, on March 31, 1977, Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in which he said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

Even the Palestinian National Charter starts with this article: “Article 1 – The Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.” Moreover, Balad Party founder Azmi Bishara, an Israeli Arab, stated in an interview: “Well, I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation at all; I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so, and I have not changed my mind.”

(snip)

However, here one must ask: What exactly is the right to self-determination that nations enjoy? Must it take form in an official state, or can it be actualized via other means such as political autonomy? Today, the Palestinians choose their own leaders. They have their own parliament, government and police force. They do not have control over immigration, and they do not have an army. Borders and the military are what differentiates them from a regular state, and the reasons why Israel refuses to grant the Palestinians control over their borders and military is totally justified. Granting them these things would endanger Israel’s very existence.

More..

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/A-Fresh-Perspective-A-critique-of-Palestinian-nationalism-407795

[Mosby]

1. i wonder what the jury results were for your OP.

Thanks for posting, excellent piece.

[grossproffit]

2. How can you tell a topic was reported?

I, too, thought it was an excellent article. I even recommended it.

[question everything]

4. Thank you. See my reply, below (nt)

[question everything]

3. Flew under the smoke of the Forth fireworks

No, seriously. I was wondering whether a jury would remove it but, really, I think that the strongest supporters of an independent Palestinians states and the strongest haters of Israel should at least know that such opinions exist.

And I followed the guidelines that call for posting only original stories including op-eds.

In reality. several weeks ago someone asked me of when did the Palestinians in the occupied territories start to consider themselves as an entity and I was asking around and received similar responses.

What sometimes bugs me is that after Israel's war of Independence and the drawing of the armistice lines, Trans Jordan - as was called then - annexed the West Bank and no one raised a protest. This annexation was actually recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan.

[Israeli]

6. I hope you dont mind me pointing out to you that .....

...this op-ed has nothing to do with the Palestinians what-so-ever .......it is an attack upon the Zionist Left . I'm thinking you know that tho considering your well placed ' snips ' .

FYI Dan Illouz is one of the leaders of ' Im Tirtzu ' ......see :

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Author.aspx/627

For more information read : ....

Right-wing group Im Tirtzu's latest target - Israel's Supreme Court

After leaving much of the left wing in its wake, the organization opened its new campaign at a conference in south Tel Aviv – which could be why so few turned up.

By Roy (Chicky) Arad | Nov. 27, 2014

@ http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.628697

[Little Tich]

10. Oh.

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Why would the Jerusalem Post be a mouthpiece for a fascist? It does, however explain the vibes i got from the IP.

[Israeli]

14. Good question Little Tich.....

Why do you think the Jerusalem Post would be a mouthpiece for a fascist?

Now why would you think I would need to read up more on the history of early Israel.....and who would you suggest I read ????

FYI ...both my parents were born here and I was born here in 1950 ....how far back do you want me to " read " .... ?????

[Little Tich]

16. Cut and paste accident... Sorry.

Was meant for this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134108229#post17

[question everything]

18. I thought that he gave relaible sources for his conclusions

Yes, I removed the parts about Israel - did not like the effusive praise. And as long as his facts are correct I can ignore the source. Same with stories from the WSJ.

Granted, I don't visit this group often, but no doubt many stories here start with bias. Same as with stories in LBN.

I think that most Israelis see themselves in a bind that, apparently was expressed by Ari Shavit's book My Promised Land (I did not read the book, only reviews..):

If peace is an illusion, is Israel then destined for indefinite conflict with its neighbors? Mr. Shavit's short, grim answer is: probably yes. If Israel stays in the West Bank—the country pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005—the Jewish state will be diplomatically and morally doomed. But if it retreats, it could face a fanatical, Iran-backed Hamas regime on its eastern border whose missiles would endanger the country's central population hub.

"After ending occupation, we'll have to establish a new, firm and legitimate iron wall on our postoccupation borders," he writes. "Facing a regional tide of radical Islam, Israel will have to be an island of enlightenment. . . . Israel will have to be moral, progressive, cohesive, creative and strong."

======

And this was written before the uprising of ISIL.

[azurnoir]

19. Let's take a closer look at what was included-misleading, edited, and possibly fabricated

Indeed, on March 31, 1977, Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in which he said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

what is misleading here is that Illouz fails to mention that Muhsein (Zuheir Mohsen) was the leader of the Syrian Baathist party al-Saiqa, which operated in Syria under the auspices of Assad the elder and as such his 'embrace' of Pan Arabism is a bit more in line with Baathist ideology that that embraced by Palestinians

Even the Palestinian National Charter starts with this article: “Article 1 – The Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

No not exactly, article1 reads

Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people and an integral part of the great Arab homeland, and the people of Palestine are part of the Arab nation.

http://www.pac-usa.org/the_palestinian_charter.htm\

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/plo_Charter.pdf

Moreover, Balad Party founder Azmi Bishara, an Israeli Arab, stated in an interview: “Well, I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation at all; I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so, and I have not changed my mind.”

Now here is where it gets 'strange' any attempt to trace down this alleged quote leads straight back to wait for it ......this article. leading to the conclusion this article is the source, perhaps Bishara was being interviewed by Shabak (Shin Bet) as he was a number of times before he fled Israel. reportedly for Qatar

[shira]

34. Nothing misleading, edited, or fabricated....

King Hussein of Jordan used to say Jordan is Palestine & Palestine is Jordan. Mahmoud Abbas confirmed this the other day when he was quoted saying Palestinians and Jordanians are 1 people living in 2 states.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196194#.VZxw2xNViko



The article was correct about Article 1. It was from the 1964 PNC. Palestinians are an integral part of the Arab nation.


And Azmi Bishara was quoted from Israeli TV...

Translation: Well, I dont think there is a Palestinian Nation at all. I think there is an Arab Nation, I always thought so and I didnt change my mind. I dont think there is a Palestinian Nation, I think its a Colonial invention Palestinian Nation. When provenance was there any Palestinians? Where did it come from? What I think there is an Arab Nation, I never turned to be a Palestinian Nationalist, Despite of my decisive Struggle Against the Occupation. I think that until loop the end of the 19TH century, Palestine was the South of Great Syria.

[azurnoir]

59. Obfuscation gets you nowhere

King Hussien wasn't mentioned

the title of your 'settler news' (arutz sheva) article is

as for your Israel National News aka settler news article Palestinins are one people that live in many countries and which King Hussien

and your video now it gets really rich, the obfuscation here is thicker than hummus it centers on the term 'nation' when Bishara is speaking he means a physical location, yet the author and apparently you would us believe he means a nation as a people like the Cherokee nation , the quote did not turn up on Google because what he says in the video is not what the author claimed

[Israeli]

40. You are missing my point .....

which was that ....his op-ed was an attack on the Zionist Left .....he is religious right wing .....of course he is biased .

Ari Shavit is not most Israelis ....he is a neo-Zionist or Israeli neo-Conservatist.

Kindly read here : @

http://972mag.com/book-review-on-ari-shavits-my-promised-land/83686/

It is a theory which is not exactly Left and not exactly Right, an approach that seeks to respond to post-Zionist trends of the nineties, that sees the multi-cultural nature of Israeli society is a threat, that seeks to renew Ben-Gurion’s melting pot and views the conflict with the Palestinians as a zero-sum game that can’t really be solved; it doesn’t support the settlements but it prefers to form political pacts with the Israeli Right and not the Left. Other prominent neoconservatives are journalists Ben Dror-Yemini, Gadi Taub and Irit Linor (like Shavit, all three had their roots in the Israeli left), MK Elazar Stern and Finance Minister Yair Lapid. Even a phenomenon like Im Tirzu needs to be understood in the context of Zionist Romanticism, and not (purely) as a right-wing element.

My Promised Land is a book for the Zionist “1 percent,” not so much in terms of money but political power and cultural assets. (The gossip entry in an Israeli newspaper for the book launch party at the New Yorker editor’s home stated that “an aerial convoy of [Shavit's] wealthy good friends from Israel arrived,” then listing the names of Israeli billionaires, a high-society attorney, a journalist known for her adoration of Israel’s tycoons, and more.) Shavit’s own journalistic career is one of extreme proximity to power: he supported Netanyahu in the late 1990s, then aligned with Ehud Barak, then became closer to the Sharon family (Shavit gave a personal testimony in favor of Omri Sharon just before the young Sharon, who took the fall for his father, was sent to prison), then Barak again. In Barak’s service, Shavit tried to politically assassinate Tzipi Livni ahead of the 2009 general elections, and traces of Barak and Bibi’s resentment for former head of Mossad Meir Dagan runs through the Iran chapter.

One can also try and make sense of the praise from liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, who welcomed the book. My Promised Land was lavished with endorsements from the most important columnist in America, the editor of the most important magazine, the head of the most important Jewish organization, the most important literary critic and the most important Jewish journalist.

These people often feel like they are the same person. Like many of Shavit’s heroes, they are powerful Ashkenazi-Jewish men. Their feelings of identification with Israel were built on the myths from the early decades, which Shavit revisits; their more intimate encounters with the country, however, were in the 80s and 90s, and they bear the mark of the rise of the second and third Israel, and the rapid decline of the old elites.

Much like Shavit, these Jews feel a certain anxiety from the voices coming out of Israel; they don’t recognize “their Israel” and they don’t understand or even know the settlers, the ultra-Orthodox, the Sephardi or the Palestinians (one of the least explored topics in Israeli-Jewish American relations is the political effect of the ethnic identity of the American community on those relations).

Shavit provides his readers with an appealing explanation for the crisis, and while there is something unpleasant with an elite that schools minorities for not playing their part in the fulfillment of the Zionist dream (or fantasy), the comfort the book can provide to many readers is beyond denial. Will it give them a better understanding of the real people living in Israel/Palestine, their needs, their hopes and their dreams? I am not all that certain.

[Little Tich]

5. The OP seems to be an inadvertent call for the one-state solution and full ROR.

If the supposed goal of Palestinian nationalism to become an independent Palestinian state can't be fullfilled, there is no other solution than fully incorporating the Palestinian areas and its population into Israel. And if there's no Palestinian state to return to...

Just because the Basques can't get their independence, doesn't mean that they have to be anything else than full citizens in Spain and France. The Basques have some limited autonomous rights, but still completely under the politial umbrella as everyone else. The same principle should be valid for Palestinians.

[aranthus]

7. Maybe not RoR.

But it definitely leads to a one state conclusion. If the Palestinians aren't a "nation", then those living in territory under Israeli control have a right of citizenship. Israel can't keep them as stateless subjects.

[Little Tich]

8. If the Palestinians in Gaza and the WB are given citizenship and equal rights,

then the Law of Return must be applicable to Palestinians too.

[aranthus]

9. Why?

Citizenship and Return are two different things.

[Little Tich]

12. If Palestinians can't exercise the national rights in Israel just like Jews, then it's not equal

rights.

If Israel is the ancestral homeland of both Jews and Palestinians, then all of them should be able to live there.

[aranthus]

20. But you have to take his argument at face value

if you are going to take it to its logical conclusion. If he's right, then there is no Palestinian people and they don't have a homeland to have a right to return to. If there is a Palestinian people, they have a right to a state in some part of the Levant, and then that state can provide for their return.

[azurnoir]

22. tell us are the Tibetans born in refugee camps which are for most part in India really Tibetans?

after all it's been 65 years since China took over Tibet

[aranthus]

25. Now you're changing the argument.

Your question assumes that there is a Tibetan people. So by extension you are asking me to assume that there is a Palestinian people, which is opposite to what the author is saying. I was taking his argument to its logical conclusion, which requires assuming that there is no Palestinian people. If you want to discuss whether there is a Palestinian people, then we don't have a disagreement. They exist. They have a right to self determination, which means a state where they are the majority. Should that state be created, then that state can take in the refugees. Or they can be assimilated into their host countries.

To answer your question directly, Tibetans living outside of Tibet are still Tibetans in ancestry, but they don't have a right to return against the wishes of the Chinese government. Are Italian-Americans living in New York still Italians? They certainly are of Italian ancestry, but they aren't citizens of Italy, and they are probably more American than Italian. Now should Tibet ever become an independent state again, then that state can make arrangements for Tibetans all over the world to come back if they want.

[azurnoir]

28. Nope not at I gave you another example of a people living as refugees for 60+ years

your reply was that Tibetans living outside of Tibet are only Tibetan by ancestry, here by taking away their identity as Tibetans who should rightfully be able to live in their own country Tibet, so now I'll ask what about the Han Chinese colonizing Tibet are they Tibetan or do you now consider Tibet to be China?

As to Italians who emigrated they did so voluntarily and if they so chose can return to Italy and become citizens unlike either Palestinian or Tibetans for that matter

[aranthus]

31. No you've completely changed the discussion. We're done. n/t

[Little Tich]

39. People or not, the persons who collectively are called Palestinians still have their ancestral

in Palestine.

All democratic countries, except Israel of course, allow people whose parents or grandparents were citizens of of that country to get citizenship. For example if you are Jamaican, but your grandmother was English, then you are eligible for British citizenship.

[aranthus]

55. But the Palestinians aren't and never were Israeli.

Except for the Arabs now living in Israel.

[Little Tich]

58. Israeli citizenship is their birthright.

If their parents and grandparents would have been allowed to stay, they would all be Israeli citizens.

[shira]

35. First, there is no such thing as a full RoR (5-7 million refugees)

It's not international law. It's completely bogus.

Second, most of the 5-7 million refugees already live in historic Palestine (including Gaza, the W.Bank, and Jordan).

[Little Tich]

38. How is Jordan historic Palestine? n/t

[shira]

45. Here's a map from nearly 100 years ago...

[Little Tich]

46. From the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law website:

What is the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law?

The mission of the Office for Israeli constitutional Law is to educate the World, and if necessary to compel the World body to stand by International Law and Treaties regarding the legal borders of the Jewish National Home.

OFICL hopes that the Israeli, U.S., and European administrations will review our documentation, the relevant case law, and promptly withdraw the "Road Map" and any related facilitation, as required by international law.

However, we have gathered the evidence necessary to file a case in the United States against the U.S. government's continued violations of the Treaties that recognize Israel's rights to its internationally recognized legal borders, the prohibition against ceding any land belonging to the Jewish National Home, and supporting the right of Jewish settlement within those internationally recognized borders.

The legal borders in question comprise all Israel, including all of Judea, and Samaria (the territory erroneously referred to in the English media as the West Bank), the Gaza Strip, the entire city of Jerusalem, and more….

Read more: http://www.justicenow4israel.com/

The map conveniently leaves out Transjordan, which was an independent political entity in the Palestine mandate and never counted as part of the Mandate for political purposes. It's worth to note that the people living in the Palestine Mandate became Palestinians, and those who lived in Transjordan became Jordanians. The ancestral homeland of the Palestinians is in Palestine, and the ancestral homeland for Jordanians is Jordan. It's not possible to say that the ancestral home for the people of one side of the river lies on the other side of the river.

Also, for some mysterious, probably tin foil hat related reason, the Golan Heights are included, even though they were part of the French mandate...

You shouldn't be too involved with conspiracy theory sites like that; you might be wearing a tin foil hat too before you know it.

[shira]

47. You're wrong once again. Here's a map from 1883....

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2015, 06:56 AM - Edit history (3)

You'll notice that part of what is now Jordan (on the East side of the Jordan River) is Palestine. And it's not that the Golan isn't part of Israel. It's that it was part of Palestine, or what the Arabs of that area called southern Syria. Notice that Damascus is part of 1883 Palestine. That's Syria's capital now. You can go back to ancient maps of Israel from nearly 3000 years ago to see that part of "Palestine" then was east of the Jordan River.






Now go back to the OP and the claims there by Arab Palestinian representatives, about southern Syria, about all the land being one big geographic area in which the Arabs were only distinguishable by religion, not nationality.

BTW, Mahmoud Abbas just said the other day that Palestinians are one people in 2 states (including Jordan). Which is what the former King Hussein of Jordan said about Jordan being Palestine and Palestine being Jordan.

[Little Tich]

49. I think you are mixing things up in a very confusing way.

The name Palestine has been used for different areas in history. I think you should be clearer of which definition of Palestine you are using in this context. The fact remains though, that those persons that come from the west of the Jordan river has their ancestral homeland west of the river, and those who come from the east of the river etc.

As for the OP, pleading for support by calling for Arab unity is an old ploy. Arabs are still divided by ethnicity, language, religion, tribal affiliation and region.

[shira]

52. Another map of Palestine - 1851.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_Palestine,_Illustrated_atlas,_and_modern_history_of_the_World,_1851.jpg

The point being that Palestine was a geographic area that included Israel, Gaza, and Judea. Throughout the past 2 millenia, parts of it were in what is now Jordan. Thus, more than 3 million Palestinians who live in Jordan now are arguably already within Palestine.

[shira]

48. As to TransJordan, that was created in 1921. What do you think all that land....

....was prior to 1921?

[Little Tich]

50. I don't know much about the Ottoman history of the area, sorry. n/t

[shira]

51. Point is, at least part of Trans-Jordan was historic Palestine.

Palestinians living within Gaza, the W.Bank, and Jordan are already in the Palestinian homeland.

Then again, you still believe in a bogus full RoR that has zero basis in International Law. It's difficult having a reality-based discussion when you refuse to acknowledge basic facts.

An interesting fact for you...

After the creation of the state of Israel and before the passing of a new Jordanian Citizenship Law in 1954, Palestinians were incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan.

In 1949, the Jordanian Council of Ministers added an article to their Citizenship Law of 1928 that read

All those who at the time when this Law goes into effect habitually reside in Transjordan or in the Western part [of the Jordan] which is being administered by [the Kingdom], and who were holders of Palestinian citizenship, shall be deemed as Jordanians enjoying all rights of Jordanians and bearing all the attendant obligations.

—[13]
A new Citizenship Law was passed in 1954. It granted Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinians living in the West Bank and refugees that had fled during the war. The third stage of citizenship for Jordanian-Palestinians began on the 31 of July 1988 when Jordan severed its relationship with the West Bank, they now decreed all those residing in the West Bank as "Palestinians".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestinian_nationality

When refugees take on citizenship, they lose their refugee status. Not so in the case of Palestinians, however. Which goes to show what a fraud RoR truly is. Palestinians in the W.Bank are Jordanians, just as much as any Jordanian citizen east of the Jordan River.

That said, Israel haters in their tin-foil hats will insist on full RoR. Either due to complete ignorance, irrational "religious" belief, or due to wanting Israel ended & Jews imperiled.

[Mosby]

11. I don't think he makes it clear

The international community would never be OK with Israel annexing the WB, the UN has never approved of the Golan annexation. Most RW Zionists think that Palestinians should be relocated to other countries, Jordan in particular.

I don't see any end to the conflict in the near future in large part due to the form that Palestinian nationalism has taken. Opposing another countries existence and making that opposition a central belief creates an external locus of control, and results in perceived powerlessness. Projecting that they are helpless victims who have no ability to make changes might be garnering them lots of sympathy around the world, but it's makes real nation building and good faith negotiations less likely.

[asturias31]

17. excellent point

I recently read that a Greek minister who butted heads with the troika has just given up his position, in the wake of the Greek "No" vote, to make it easier for his country to negotiate a good deal with its creditors.

It made me wonder why, to end the blockade (implemented by Israel in response to Hamas's election and their stated intent to destroy Israel, and their thinly veiled threat to kill all Jews) Hamas hasn't either stepped down for the good of their people, or demilitarized and changed their position on Israel's right to exist.

But they are poor helpless victimized babies. With the biggest guns in Gaza, and excellent job security.

[aranthus]

21. This is the one point where I think he's correct.

That Palestinianism is built around destroying the Jewish state. How can the Palestinians make peace with Israel when their national identity is about destroying it? It makes things very tough, because the Palestinians are going to need to redefine themselves before there can be peace, and they won't do that, if ever, while they are under occupation. But does that mean that Israel has the right to essentially keep them imprisoned indefinitely?

[azurnoir]

24. Septenber 9, 1993 PLO recognizes Israel's "Right to Exist"

PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin:

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

- The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
- The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
- The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
- The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman, Palestine Liberation Organization


https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

ETA the predictable response will be the Hamas Charter presented as the all inclusive final word representing Palestinian thought far and wide, when it is in fact not the case

[aranthus]

26. So? n/t

[azurnoir]

27. you unequivocally stated that "Palestinianism is built around destroying the Jewish state"

when in fact that is demonstrably untrue as was proven om September 9. 1993

[Mosby]

29. the PLO renounced the use of terrorism?

They pay terrorist's families as much as $38,000 per year as a reward for their crimes.

[azurnoir]

32. They pay political prisoners families because the they have no other means of support

[Mosby]

37. wrong.

They pay terrorist's families.

Mass murderers.

Bombmakers.

Suicide bombers.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/cash-strapped-pa-spends-4-5-million-per-month-compensating-security-detainees/

[azurnoir]

42. They pay political prisoners families, these are welfare payments not salaries as your article calls

them and yes some of them are in prison for acts of terrorism too, would you rather the families starve for the sins of the fathers?

[aranthus]

30. Arafat's letter prove's no such thing.

He wrote what he needed to say. The vote to change the Charter that he said was going to happen never happened. His letter says that he recognizes Israel. It says nothing about recognizing Israel as the Jewish state, which is the heart of the matter (which you know, so why are we doing this dance?) Have the Palestinians accepted a Jewish state? No. Have they withdrawn the demand for RoR? No. At least be honest about what the Palestinians have been saying for the last 70 years. Your claim is so obviously false that I don't understand why you would even make it.

[azurnoir]

33. In 1993 recognizing Israel as the "Jewish State" wasn't on the table it was "right to exist" then

Netanyahu added that as a stipulation or stall in 2009 or 2010

[shira]

36. Unless RoR is revoked, the PLO is still going for all of Israel

As the leader of BDS said, a full RoR (which has no basis in International Law) wouldn't establish an Israel next to a Palestine, but rather a Palestine next to another Palestine.

As for Abbas' PLO recognizing Israel, there are plenty examples of just the opposite...

[azurnoir]

43. puleez that aged piece of antiPalestinian propaganda is worn out

the Palestinians at the UN have been quite plain in what they want as a state

[aranthus]

53. Why would anyone give a crap what they say at the UN?

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2015, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

That'd propaganda for sure. I care about what they say to each other; what they say about Jews. When Omar Barghouti says that if BDS gets its goals that there won't be an Israel. Or this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134108368

[azurnoir]

54. what I've noticed here is that antisemitism is used to justify the occupation

in fact it is major theme of those 'supporting' Israel but to cite that on this thread in particular is nearly laughable, because the guy in Chile and the the author here are IMO flip sides of the same coin, the difference is that in the thread you link to there is not a line up of folks defending his position, there is one who does point out he quotes Schlomo Sand, which is quite true he does as to the rest I could not get the video to play straight through which is why I did not comment

Now as to Omar Barghouti that has been discussed ad nauseum, the simple fact is that once the West Bank is freed from the military occuption and the Palestinians have their state from which they can freely travel, import, and export BDS will die of its own accord, just as the boycott against South Africa did

[aranthus]

56. You are in denial.

Your position is either deluded or deceitful. Why the hell would Omar Barghouti give up on BDS once there is a Palestinian state, if his goal is full RoR? Why would the Palestinians give up on that if they aren't forced to? They have been saying things along the lines that I have posted for some seventy years, and all you have is Arafat's letter and some happy talk at the UN? That's pathetic.

As for Arab/Muslim antisemitism and chauvinism used to justify the occupation, well that is because such things really exist. Barghouti and the Palestinian minister aren't saying anything new. They just prove that such things are still at the core of the Palestinian position.

[azurnoir]

57. No denial at all as none is necessary so let's review okay?

I said nothing about Omar Barghouthi himself giving up, I said the BDS movement itself would dry up once a free viable Palestinian State exists, one with freedom of international movement along with importing and exporting goods

as to "happy talk" at the UN, that is what we have to go on Abbas/Palestinians outlined very plainly what they want/expect for a state and 130+ countries agree with that outline as presented

Now as to the guy in Chile he is IMO the flip side of the very same coin as the author of this article, both deny peoplehood to other, however it seems this guy has far more support here than the one in Chile

As to Arab antisemitism outside of Palestine I'm glad you brought that up because Egypt had a TV series or some-such based on the infamous 'Protocols' yet Egypt and Israel managed to sign a peace treaty anyway, curious that

[azurnoir]

13. Fresh? well it has been a few years since Newt Gringrich, but really nothing new here

more from the article

The bottom line: Comparing Jewish nationalism to Palestinian nationalism is wrong

When left-wing Zionists compare Jewish nationalism to Palestinian nationalism, they are comparing things which cannot be compared.

Jewish nationalism is thousands of years old, older than most other forms of nationalism, and it is based on positive values of love: for one’s nation, for one’s land and for a better world.

Palestinian nationalism is a recent invention.

It is not even clear if it exists today, based on the declarations of the Palestinians themselves. It is also a movement based on negative values: denying the right of others to exist.

The comparison between the movements is nothing less than a cynical blasphemy.

If to the Zionist Left, Zionism is not more valuable than Palestinian nationalism, then one must start asking himself how much left-wing Zionists truly value Zionism. ■

what strikes me is again and again we see that supporting a Palestinian State in what is recognized as Palestine by 130+ countries that is the West Bank and Gaza, called the delgitimizing Israel if not out right destroying Israel, which leads to the conclusion that for this fellow and his like minded fellow travelers, that the occupied territories are already sovereign Israel, it just that an apparently antisemitic/naive. or otherwise unknowledgeable world needs to learn and accept this so called fact

[Israeli]

15. Yup ....

....which leads to the conclusion that for this fellow and his like minded fellow travelers, that the occupied territories are already sovereign Israel,...

[azurnoir]

23. More over part pf Illouz's mission here is to sever the Palestinian's living outside of OPT from

those living within the OPT and Israel, leaving them stateless forever and limiting the nonJewish Arab population of Israel and the OPT

[Israeli]

41. His mission in that op-ed ....

......is to de-legitimize the Zionist Left azurnoir.....

First they came for the post zionists , and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a post zionist .

Then they came for .........

[azurnoir]

44. IMO there are elements of both with a heavy dash of

"no such people as Palestinians, just a mass of indistinguishable Arabs" thrown in for good measure