Sen. Leahy likens Palestinians to his Irish ancestors

[grassfed]

Sen. Leahy likens Palestinians to his Irish ancestors, 'hunted because they wanted to keep their land'

The Vermont senator is on the floor of the Senate now, debating the Kyl amendments on the omnibus appropriations bill. One of them bars Palestinian refugees of Gaza from resettling here, because they come from a "terrorist" land, as Leahy characterized the legislation. The senator then compared the Palestinian experience to his own ancestors in Ireland. They too were called terrorists once, because they were "fighting to keep their land," fighting for their votes and freedom, religion and language. And "hunted" for doing so-- "hunted because they had fought to practice their own religion... hunted because they wanted to keep their land...

"Thank goodness the United States had open arms for them." The amendment, Leahy says, "goes against everything we stand for."

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/sen-leahy-likens-palestinians-to-his-irish-ancestors-hunted-because-they-wanted-to-keep-their-land.html

Kyl Amendments:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/sen-jon-kyl-proposing-discrimatory-amendment-to-budget-bill-that-would-prevent-gazan-refugees-from-r.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. I used to read the Irish Times specifically to read about the Middle East. Interesting! nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Leahy is right

It is, indeed, a good comparison. One has to wonder why we won't allow Palestinians to settle here when it is so easy to make background checks, etc. Was there a similar ban on Irish immigration during the recent "Troubles"?

[regnaD kciN]

4. If we did...

...I wonder if we'd start seeing a spate of "No Palestinians Need Apply" signs? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

16. Absolutely. Only it would just be "no ragheads" or "no sandn_____s"

It's already there, simply directed at all Muslims and all Arabs.

[cali]

22. really? you've seen signs aying that?

Not only haven't I seen that, I haven't read about it either.

[Ken Burch]

23. Not the literal signs, but the attitude.

Palestinians and Arabs aren't welcome in this country. They're treated like they're all "terrorists".

It's time to admit that Arabs and Muslims aren't evil and that they aren't antisemites.

[cali]

25. Palestinian-Americans and Arab-Americans have been here for a long time

and they are indeed generally welcome in this country. Yes, there's prejudice, but you are overstating the situation considerably. Projecting your pov that this country is a racist pit is what it looks like to me.

[Mosby]

28. Recent polls show that about 95% of Arabs/Persians in the ME

are anti-semitic. Doesn't make them evil of course, just ignorant.

[LeftishBrit]

29. And subjected to an endless barrage of propaganda, with no counterbalance

Most Europaeans used to be antisemitic, for similar reasons; this has changed to a large (if not sufficient) degree.

At any rate, regrettable, but not a reason for excluding Arab refugees.

Incidentally, in the UK according to recent polls only 6% *directly* admit to disliking Jews, and 14% to disliking Muslims - but 50% support 'voluntary' repatriation of immigrants (which in practice tends to include 2nd-and 3rd-generation immigrants). In Britain, the biggest barrage of media propaganda is against immigrants as such, and that's the result. There is fortunately some counterbalance, which is why it's 50% and not 95%.

[Mosby]

30. Agree with your points

I certainly don't think anyone should be denied refugee status or lose the ability to emigrate due to ignorant attitudes towards others.

The UK does not seem to have the same issues as other European countries towards Jews and Muslims:

Great Britain stands out as the only European country included in the survey where there has not been a substantial increase in anti-Semitic attitudes. Just 9% of the British rate Jews unfavorably, which is largely unchanged from recent years. And relatively small percentages in both Australia (11%) and the
United States (7%) continue to view Jews unfavorably. Opinions about Muslims in almost all of these countries are considerably more negative than are views of Jews. Fully half of Spanish (52%) and German respondents (50%) rate Muslims unfavorably. Opinions about Muslims are somewhat less negative in Poland (46%) and considerably less negative in France (38%). About one-in-four in Britain and the United States
(23% each) also voice unfavorable views of Muslims. Overall, there is a clear relationship between anti-Jewish and anti- Muslim attitudes: publics that view Jews unfavorably also tend to see Muslims in a negative light.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/262.pdf

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. 75 percent of Jewish-Israeli students believe that Arabs are uneducated, uncivilized and unclean

But as Leftishbrit says, and "subjected to an endless barrage of propaganda" this does not make them evil, just ignorant.

Polls of Israeli attitudes toward Palestinian citizens of Israel

Remembering both these polls refer to Palestinians who live inside Israel and hold Israeli citizenship -- people commonly refereed to as "Israeli-Arabs". A people who have certainly not been in a state of rebellion for most of the past 60 years:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350467,00.html

"The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.
On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean."

This was poll was actually based on 1600 students at 22 high schools within Israel.

""The data was presented at a bi-lingual conference held in Haifa. The study, titled "Perception of 'the Other' among Jewish and Arab Youth in Israel" included 1,600 students studying in 22 high schools around the country.

another poll of Israeli-Jewish attitude toward Arab citizens of Israel:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3231048,00.html

"The poll presented Wednesday showed that 68 percent of respondents said they do not wish to live next to an Arab neighbor, compared with 26 percent who said they would agree.

Responding to a question about Arab friends, 46 percent said they would not be willing to have Arab friends who would visit them at their home.

Some 63 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab civilians as a security and demographic threat, and 34 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab culture as inferior compared to Israeli culture. Half of the population, according to the poll, is anxious and uncomfortable when hearing Arabic on the street.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. Ken I don't think that's accurate.

I'm not saying people don't harbor racist attitudes in their hearts and heads, or that Arabs aren't unfairly racially profiled, or that media portrayals of Arabs are fair... but I don't think your characterization is accurate.

My husband is a high-level professional. Only once at a professional conference did someone publicly disparage Arabs as part of a presentation. My husband called him on it publicly and received kudos for it.

I think in terms of the arts and such, Arabic performers receive media coverage and other kinds of support. Our Arab-American arts and culture group receives a wide array of foundation funding.

We have loads of A-A friends, and I don't know that any would say they are all treated like terrorists.

[Ken Burch]

34. Well, I'm glad it's better for your husband and your friends than I'd heard

Still, it's not what it should be, and the attitudes people had right after 9/11 can always be brought back to the surface.

[Shaktimaan]

39. what are you talking about exactly?

How are Arabs and Muslims treated like they're all terrorists? Who has said that they are unwelcome in this country aside from a very tiny, bigoted minority in specific areas?

It's time to admit that Arabs and Muslims aren't evil and that they aren't antisemites.

Who exactly should be admitting these things? Has someone been actively making statements to the contrary? Where do you live that you actually see behavior like you're describing?

I don't believe that many people think that merely being Muslim or Arab is an automatic indication of anti-semitism or anything like that. But it would likewise be foolish to deny that anti-semitism is rampant in most Arab states. It is acceptable to voice anti-semitic opinions and values in Arab states in a way that you would never see in America against any other group, Arabs and Muslims included.

[Ken Burch]

15. And, the Irish example raises another point.

The Israeli right goes on and on about the Palestinian deportees still being in refugee camps. The implication is that if they'd been let out of those camps(and before anyone goes on about this, I don't support their being kept in those places)that they'd have just happily settled in in Cairo or Amman or Beirut or Costa Rica(as a bogus "Palestinian leader" in a right-wing James Michener novel suggests they settle for doing), the Palestinians would have given up on returning to their homeland and would have accepted Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza as the natural order of things.

Anybody who knows the Irish American community and its relationship to the Irish nationalist struggle knows that their story proves this idea to be utter shite(Irish spelling of "shite" intentional).

There was NEVER going to be a situation in which the Palestinians would simply have accepted the loss of their homeland and quietly moved on. If nobody else that was exiled did prior to them ever did, why would they?

It goes without saying that the Palestinian cause would live to this day even if no refugee camps had ever existed. No one gives up fighting for their land.

[Shaktimaan]

18. you are misunderstanding the argument.

You are equating the Palestinian's nationality and the Irish's nationality with each other. But the difference as it affects this scenario is that Palestine, the nationality, developed to a large extent as a reaction to Zionism and the forced separation that Palestinian refugees to other states have endured. The Irish have certain aspects which set their nationality apart from those surrounding them, such as religion, culture, food, language, etc. While the main thing that differentiates a Palestinian from an Egyptian or Jordanian is being born on the Palestinian side of the border.

Besides this, no one is arguing that the Palestinians homeland wouldn't exist if not for these camps... Palestine exists. In fact, many Palestinians living within Palestine reside in refugee camps as well. It is more that the Palestinian identity wouldn't necessarily exist if not for Zionism. Palestinians are the Arabs who were directly affected by the creation of Israel. The land that was affected is their homeland strictly by virtue of the fact that it was the land affected by Zionism. In a sense, Jewish nationalism is what really defined Palestinian nationalism. Not so of Ireland. The Irish would still be a distinct nationality even if the British had not colonized it.

And your argument that no one ever accepts exile from a specific nationality doesn't make much sense. Look at Israel for instance. It is made up primarily of refugees and their descendants. What is the difference between an Iraqi Jew who was exiled to Israel and a Palestinian Arab exiled to Iraq in terms of their losing their nationality? Nothing really. (Well, the Palestinian and the Iraqis actually have much more in common than the Iraqi Jew and his new Israeli neighbors.)

Half of Jordan's citizens are technically Palestinian as well. And all of the Palestinians living in the west bank were once Jordanian as well before Jordan stripped them of their citizenship. Heck, Jordan itself WAS Palestine before the british sectioned it off and gave it a different name. The point is that the Palestinian identity is kind of an ambiguous thing. (Or even an arbitrary thing.) Palestine's most famous leader was himself an Egyptian, for example.

[Vegasaurus]

19. Facts are funny, aren't they Shakti?

And revisionist history all the better.

What about the Egyptian "Palestinian" leader?

Or the Jordanian Palestinians?

Or the complete lack of a nationalist movement until 1967?

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. except none of that is true, none of it

First of all, I assume the reference to an "Egyptian Palestinian leader" might be referring to Yasser Arafat. There is no record of him being born in Egypt. Even if he was, not one credible historian has ever seriously denied that his family is of Palestinian origin.

Regarding Jordan, yes at least half of the current residents of Jordan were either born in what is now Israel, the West Bank or Gaza - or their parents or grandparent were born there - so most of these define themselves as Palestinian. Is it unusual that people whose parents or grandparents came from a specific country might identify themselves by that country? Everyone knows that in Jordanian society, there is very strong awareness of who is Palestinian and who is original Jordanian. They do now and always have considered themselves different people. Although no doubt, many Palestinians have over time come to view themselves as Jordanian also.

The PLO Charter of 1968 gives a specific definition of who is a Palestinian: "Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

----------------------------

As far as no national movement prior to 1967, I will take the liberty and re-post an excellent post made by Lithos more than two years ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=156631#156801

Edited on Wed Nov-29-06 06:40 AM by Lithos

1899 - Palestinian Mayor of Jerusalem pleaded with the Chief Rabbi of France to "Leave Palestine alone".
1907 - Palestinian representatives go to Constantinople to plead for the implementation of restrictions against Jewish immigration.
1908 - Founding of the newspaper "Al-Karmil"
1911 - Haram al-Sharif incident where a British archaeological group helped by several Ottoman officials were discovered excavating under the Dome of the Rock; this prompted significant political outrage by Palestinian groups against the Ottoman government.
- Founding of the newspaper, "Filastin" (Palestine)
1919 - First Palestinian National Congress meets and sends two people to the Paris Peace talks demanding Independence. There would be 6 more up Congresses up to 1935.
1920 - French conquer Syria. Most Nationalists start thinking and talking in terms of Palestine, not "Greater Syria". The Second Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations which at the first Congress (1919) declared its position for a combined Greater Syria now proclaimed its support for an Independent Palestine.
1921 - Founding of the Palestinian Arab Action Committee by Jamal al-Husayni
- Foundation of the Palestinian Communist Party later evolved through various steps into today's PPP.
1922 - Founding of the Supreme Muslim Council by the British as a parallel group to the Jewish settler groups.
1925 - Founding of the Palestinian Arab Workers Society by Sami Taha
1934 - Founding of the National Defence Party by Raghib al-Nashashibi
1935 - Founding of the National Bloc by Abd al-Latif Salah
- Sheikh Qassam decided that the diplomatic approch of Grand Mufti Husseini was not succeeding launched a series of attacks. He became the first significant Palestinian "hero" upon his death in 1935 which also provided the spark for the Great Arab Revolt in Palestine from 1936-39;
- Founding of the Palestinian Arab Party by Jamal al-Husayni as a successor of the Palestinian Arab Action Committee
- Founding of the Reform Party by Husayin al-Khalidi in Palestine on 23 June 1935.
1936 - Founding of the "Arab Higher Committee", a shadow parliament/organization of Palestinian parties.
1944 - Musa Alami was elected by Palestinian political parties to represent Palestine at the Arab Congress. It was his recommendations which provided much of the language and thought for the Arab League's non-military actions against Israel. These included the fund for the development of Palestine, lobbying for embargos against Jewish goods from Palestine,
1947 - Husseini (Grand Mufti) made the case for Palestinian independence at the Arab League meeting

1948+ saw a different phase. One notable example was the foundation of the All Palestine Congress in 1948 which served as a shadow government.

The general ideas are that prior to 1920, Nationalism was generally pan-Arab or for a Greater Syria. However, the issues of Jewish colonization and perceived excessive Western influence and meddling in Palestine helped spark the first major Palestinian political efforts and self-identity. 1917-1920 saw tremendous changes through the Balfour Agreement the failure and perceived sell-out by Faisal, and the French conquest of Syria. By 1920, Palestinian identity supplanted that of the pan-Syrian one. The foundation of Palestinian political parties and the first Palestinian Congresses begins at this time. Another wave of political activities began in 1935 when a reactionary movement started against those advocating diplomacy with the British. This ultimately resulted in the 1936-39 revolt and the 1939 White Paper which altered the Balfour Agreement. (In effect, the Palestinians politically forced a change to the Balfour Agreement - again another example of Palestinian identity).

As for the Arab League, the issue was not one of Palestinian Independence, but rather as to which group should have preeminence as various countries vied to nominate people who were favorable to them.

"Those Arabs who left and ended up in the refugee camps of those Pan-Arab states were not leaving Israel as the first step along the way to some "Palestinian statehood".

Those who left were trying to avoid the fighting and had no intention of being gone long. The general perception was that the Arab Armies would have won militarily and they would return fairly soon to their homes.

The main reason Israel exists now is not due to any moral superiority, but because they were more prepared to fight. Nothing wrong with that at all, it is just a fact and actually quite common for the time period (ex: the separation of Pakistan and India has many parallels in terms of how the refugee situation occurred.). However, discussions which try to deny a Palestinian identity are only trying to claim a false sense of morality about what happened. They also are part and parcel of the language used by ultra-Nationalists such as Lieberman and terrorists such as Kahane who rely on such false morality to help justify their outrage and their agendas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=156631#156801

Regarding the "Jordan is Palestine" argument...let me quote from a book strongly recommended by Shakti - in fact Shati said this was one of the best nonpartisan, nonbiased book he had read on the subject of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


from Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?" by Professor Bernard Wasserstein, University of Chicago Professor of History specializing in Israeli history:

"Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-2. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there -- but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's "first partition" has become part of the concept of "Greater Israel" and the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement. Long after the establishment of Israel, the Revisionists' political heirs, the Herut Party (core elements in what became Likud) led by Manahem Begin, still dreamed of a Jewish state the would include Transjordan. Their catch-phrase was "The Jordan has two banks: one is ours and the other too. Most Revisionist conveniently forgot that their ideological hero, Jabotinsky, had, as a member of the Zionist Executive, endorsed the arrangements in 1922 that explicitly prohibited settlement in Transjordan. More recently, advocates of Israeli annexation of the West Bank have asserted the proper home of Palestinian Arabs is in Transjordan: hence the slogan "Jordan is Palestine".

The creation of Transjordan, then has nothing to do with the partition, properly understood, save for the purposes of some propagandist."

from page 105 (bottom) to page 106 of "Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?"

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-They-Fight-Second/dp/0300105975/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174895894&sr=1-1

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Excellent post, Douglas!

I doubt very much that Veggie will even bother reading it, as facts don't seem to be high on the priority list for them, but I hope Shakti reads the post and more importantly reads up on Palestinian nationalism and identity before posting on the issue again...

[Shaktimaan]

36. Good post, thank you.

Your quote from Lithos' post generally reinforces what I was saying about Palestinian nationalism and its relationship to Zionism.

The general ideas are that prior to 1920, Nationalism was generally pan-Arab or for a Greater Syria. However, the issues of Jewish colonization and perceived excessive Western influence and meddling in Palestine helped spark the first major Palestinian political efforts and self-identity. 1917-1920 saw tremendous changes through the Balfour Agreement the failure and perceived sell-out by Faisal, and the French conquest of Syria. By 1920, Palestinian identity supplanted that of the pan-Syrian one. The foundation of Palestinian political parties and the first Palestinian Congresses begins at this time. Another wave of political activities began in 1935 when a reactionary movement started against those advocating diplomacy with the British. This ultimately resulted in the 1936-39 revolt and the 1939 White Paper which altered the Balfour Agreement. (In effect, the Palestinians politically forced a change to the Balfour Agreement - again another example of Palestinian identity).

Now this understanding of the special influence that Jewish Nationalism had upon Palestinian Nationalism's development is not a criticism of the legitimacy of Palestinian identity. Recognizing that a specific identity didn't exist in its modern incarnation before a few decades ago does not in any way make it any less real or significant to those who hold it. Most "identities" don't develop without some kind of force from "outside." Identity politics is often as informed by what someone "is not" as by what they "are."

Using the relatively recent history of Palestinian Nationalism as an excuse to de-legitimize their right to a state is roughly equivalent to efforts by some to de-legitimize Zionism based on arguments concerning its "artificiality." The fact is that most of the more recent Arab states were based as much on Western political concerns as ethnic nationalism, which is usually seen as the "natural" standard for statehood.

So what's my point? Just that when discussing the history of this conflict people should be wary of drawing easy comparisons between different situations and countries. Irish nationalism is a very different thing than Palestinian nationalism, though there is often a tendency to portray Palestine in similar ways as ancient ethnic nationalities. In this way Zionism can be described in ways that imply it is less "authentic" or that otherwise misrepresent the complex relationship that the two identities have historically had in each others development.

Depending on which side one is defending I've noticed a tendency to portray the identity politics of each group in specific ways. IMO, the history is useful for gaining insight into more contemporary politics and opinions. But as for using it to either justify or de-legitimize either group's "authenticity" I would tend to argue that it has no bearing on "right to exist" issues.

I hope I've done a better job of explaining my argument here than I seem to have done before.

[Ken Burch]

21. His parents were Palestininans who happened to be living in Egypt when he was born.

Are you going to argue that De Valera wasn't Irish because he was born in New York? There are a lot of establishments there AND in Dublin where you wouldn't go in and say that(at least you wouldn't have in the past).

Look, people resign themselves to exile at times. But that doesn't mean that making them people of a particular community go into exile is going to make those people give up on getting back to their homeland. That's what I was pointing out in the Irish example. Most of the fundraising for the IRA occurred in bars in New York and Boston and San Francisco. The fact that those people ended up staying in their place of exile did not mean that they accepted it was right that they were sent there.

As to the Jewish exiles you mentioned, they have resigned themselves to living in Israel rather than in their homes in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, or Iraq. That doesn't mean they have given up on their descendants getting back to their homelands.

The Palestinians have always seen themselves as a nation. There has always been a huge indigenous Arab population in Palestine.
The fact that a lot of them have ended up and remained in exile does not mean that exiling them is just.

Israel isn't ever going to be wiped out or even ever be in serious danger of being wiped out, but if it wants to have a true peace, a justice-based peace, the Israeli government needs to admit that Palestine was always spiritually a nation and that the Palestinians should not have been driven away from their homes in 1948. Only the Europeans should have to have suffered for the Holocaust, not a bunch of innocent Arabs who were, at the time, powerless colonial subjects of Britain.

And no serious-minded person still accepts, if anyone ever really did. tje "Jordan is Palestine and the Palestinians should just move there" argument. Even the Likud Party admits that one is bogus now.

It can't harm Israel to admit that Palestine was always a nation, and it can't help Israel to pretend it never was. Doing the second thing only makes everything worse.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. And since when has the Palestinians have no distinct nationality been a LW argument?

That sort of argument is nonsense. Apart from the fact that there are distinct differences in identity and culture between Palestinians and Egypt for example, and it's more a matter of some Americans clinging to the ignorant notion that they're all Arabs, so they must all have the same interchangable indistinct nationality and identity, than anything else. It's a stupid argument. According to it, I shouldn't compare my own nationality to that of the Irish, because apart from being a recent national identity compared to many others, the main thing that differentiated us from the British for a long time was that we were born in the Southern Hemisphere and they were born in the Northern Hemisphere. New Zealanders? Hey, the main thing that differentiates them from us is that they were born on the little islands to the east of us. And I bet you couldn't even list five distinct religious, cultural, food, language etc things that distinguish us from New Zealanders, could you? I could and a Kiwi could, but most Americans couldn't because I wouldn't expect them to be any more familiar with our national identity than they are with Palestinians. So thanks for the argument that leads to the conclusion that my national identity is much less valuable than that of an Irishman. I'll bow in deference to the next Irishman I encounter...

[Ken Burch]

35. The "no Palestinian nationality" argument is a lynchpin of the pro-transfer position.

If you don't have a nationality, it's no big deal to drive you off of the land your family has lived on and worked(which is morally the same as having a title to)for centuries.

Denial of Palestinian nationality is necessary to argue that all that's been done to Palestinians is, well, no big deal.

[Shaktimaan]

37. Since when did I even imply such a thing?

IMO the most convincing evidence for a specific, independent identity are examples of members of the group pronouncing it themselves. Now you could argue that since most of the Arab world before the 20th century looked at this subject in an entirely different way than the west did, it is unfair to expect that the Palestinians should define themselves according to our standards. But to imply that such a single unifying identity actually did exist across the myriad of tribal identities in pre-modern Palestine would just be dishonest. Even through most of the 20th century there's no paucity of Palestinian Arabs who argued against even using the term "Palestinian" let alone accepted its definition.

In short, I don't believe the answer is even up to us. It is entirely up to the Palestinians alone. Arguing that there are differences between the Egyptians and Palestinians is not nearly enough to demonstrate a national identity. You have to show that some kind of unifying movement existed amongst Palestinians, as defined by themselves. Did the Kiwis and the Australians choose to differentiate themselves from each other while declaring cohesiveness amongst themselves? If so then that should be enough to satisfy anyone. There's no need to demand that they justify their respective identities, the reasons are unimportant IMO.

However that cuts both ways. No explanations you make carry much water unless the Palestinians alone also chose to see themselves as an independent nation of people. To the contrary, everything I've seen tends to support the idea that until Zionism's influence distinguished the Palestinians from the Syrians and other Arabs while unifying them over their own internal distinctions, the concept of an independent Palestinian nationality did not exist.

[Shaktimaan]

38. One other thing...

So thanks for the argument that leads to the conclusion that my national identity is much less valuable than that of an Irishman. I'll bow in deference to the next Irishman I encounter...

Kindly demonstrate where exactly I implied that Palestinian nationality was in any way less valuable than that of the Irish. For that matter, where do you feel that I made specific value judgments at all in my post, (which explained the argument for drawing parallels between the development of Palestinians' political identity and the decades old Arab League directive to keep them segregated in refugee camps?)

[azurnoir]

3. John Kyl recently hosted

Dutch "film maker" Geert Wilder and had a screening of Fitna Rep Kyl is a Islamaphobe

http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/February/28%20o/Islamophobe%20Arizona%20Senator%20Jon%20Kyl,%20Zionist%20Agitator%20Frank%20Gaffney%20Host%20Anti-Islam%20Film%20in%20US%20Congress.htm

[cali]

5. Kyl is a disgusting bigot

and Leahy is a good guy with a humane perspective.

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. Sen. Leahy should avoid small planes

[cali]

8. Senator Leahy has been speaking his mind for 36 years

in the Senate. I really doubt anyone's going to off him because of these remarks on the plight of the Palestinians. Furthermore, he's made similar comments in the past.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Well, he's survived pissing off Cheney, hasn't he?

Isn't it Leahy that Cheney, in his role as VP, told to fuck himself? Leahy must have been doing something right.

[Alamuti Lotus]

14. Yes, that was Leahy

On a related matter, for some reason he turned down Cheney's offer to go on a hunting trip. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

17. Leahy's office was also attacked by the anthrax mailer.

Whoever that was . . .

[Jefferson23]

7. Good for you Leahy!

[Jefferson23]

9. If you want to voice your concern, you can do so here: Online Action Center

No Discrimination Against Palestinian Refugees in Gaza

On March 6, 2009, Senator Kyl (R-WI) introduced an amendment to the Omnibus bill that would deny Palestinian refugees from Gaza resettlement protection. The US is not likely to resettle this population in 2009, and therefore, the amendment is not only discriminatory but also unnecessary. Contrary to 30 years of extending protection to refugees on the basis of need, the Kyl amendment seeks to discriminate against an entire group based on nationality alone. Tell your Senator that this discriminatory amendment must be defeated.

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&template=x.ascx&action=11886&ICID=R0903A1&tr=y&auid=4597147

[Larkspur]

10. I hit the link and saw this notice...

Good news! Congress rejected the budget amendment by Jon Kyl (R-AZ) of Arizona that barred any money for relocating refugees from Gaza to the United States. Thanks to all who took action to prevent this amendment from passing. No further action is required at this time

[Jefferson23]

13. Excellent!

[LeftishBrit]

11. Kyl sounds evil; taking things out on refugees is the lowest of the low

Though it's what RW-ers do; find any excuse to exclude asylum-seekers.

And I may be dim, but what does this have to do with an appropriations bill anyway? Is Kyl hoping that congress will pass this bill without reading it carefully enough to see that it contains this amendment?

Good for Leahy.

[Ken Burch]

24. Kyl would have cheered on the U.S. refusal to take in Jewish refugees in the Thirties and Forties.

Just another right wing antisemitic "pro-Israel" type. He backs a Jewish state because he wants a Judenrein U.S.

[Scurrilous]

33. Somewhat related:

IRELAND’S JEWS - A FADING TRIBE ON THE EMERALD ISLE

<snip>

"In Ireland, more than four centuries of Jewish life began this millenium.

The present Jewish community of Ireland dates from the 1880s, when immigrants from Lithuania fleeing pogroms and Russian oppression landed in Dublin and Cork. Before that, there had sporadically been small Jewish communities from the mid-17th century on.

Jews have never been persecuted in Ireland, probably because they have always been such a tiny minority in an overwhelmingly Catholic country.

Most Irish Jews are comfortably middle-class; many are professionals or in business. Many are third- or fourth-generation Irish-born.

Dublin’s original Jewish cemetery has graves dating back to the early 18th century, and a second cemetery, at Dolphin’s barn, was opened in 1898, and a third, Woodlawn, in the early 1950s. The dead in Ireland far outnumber living Jews."

more