“just as they crucified Jesus 2000 years ago, they are crucifying the Palestinians today”

A search of the web for this exact passage turns up nothing. So why did you place it in quotation marks? Did you mean to say this is what you think Ateek believes? If so, the quotation marks make the passage deliberately misleading.

Second, nothing in the passage you quoted from Wikipedia shocks or disturbs me at all. It does not say that Israel is ‘crucifying’ Palestinians (as you claim) though it does talk about Palestinian ‘suffering’ and compare it to Jesus’. But ‘suffering’ and ‘crucifixion’ are 2 quite diff. terms, though perhaps they’re conveniently the same for you.

Wow! How progressive! Self determination defined as the empire consulting the people of the East about their wishes for their own future before deciding it entirely in favour of imperial interests. And how interesting that the definition hasn’t changed noticeably at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Ateek

A quote:

In his 2001 Easter message he stated, in part:

As we approach Holy Week and Easter, the suffering of Jesus Christ at the hands of evil political and religious powers two thousand years ago is lived out again in Palestine. The number of innocent Palestinians and Israelis that have fallen victim to Israeli state policy is increasing.
Here in Palestine Jesus is again walking the via dolorosa. Jesus is the powerless Palestinian humiliated at a checkpoint, the woman trying to get through to the hospital for treatment, the young man whose dignity is trampled, the young student who cannot get to the university to study, the unemployed father who needs to find bread to feed his family; the list is tragically getting longer, and Jesus is there in their midst suffering with them. He is with them when their homes are shelled by tanks and helicopter gunships. He is with them in their towns and villages, in their pains and sorrows.

As we know, one cannot use the words of any Palestinian without hoots of derision, but Benny Morris is an enthusiastic Israeli and presents no such problem. He was extensively used by Mearshimer and Walt to prove the Zionists always intended transfer.

See how Morris has tied himself in knots on p.35 of http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/setting_the_record_straight.pdf One feels sorry for him, he did all this careful “New Historian” work without realising the enormous damage it was going to do. His arguments now are in flat contradiction of what he wrote then.

the quote continues and says the Jews wanted to live in peace with the Arabs

Not quite, Dersh doesn’t quote Brandeis. He merely states that Brandeis believed Jews could live in peace with Arabs. I suppose Brandeis might’ve believed this possible. But trusting a Dersh claim of what someone believes w/o going directly to the source can be dangerous.

when the Sabeel Christian Palestinian militants say “just as they crucified Jesus 2000 years ago, they are crucifying the Palestinians today”

You know the rules here. If you wish to claim someone has said something you provide the actual name of the person who said it and an online original source that documents the quotation. This is getting tiresome, B.K. If you can’t provide a credible source for this quotation we’ll chalk it up to your overactive pro-settler imagination.

From Felix Frankfurter’s notes on the meeting —

As an American he [Brandeis] was confronted with the disposition of the vast number of Jews, particularly Russian Jews, that were pouring into the United States year by year. It was then that by chance a pamphlet on Zionism came his way and led him to the study of the Jewish problem and to the conviction that Zionism was the answer. The very same men, with the same qualities that are now enlisted in revolutionary movements would find (and in the United States do find) constructive channels for expression and make positive contributions to civilization.
Mr. Balfour interrupted to express his agreement, adding: ‘Of course, these are the reasons that make you and me such ardent Zionists’.
The Justice continued that for the realisation of the Zionist programrne three conditions were essential:—

First that Palestine should be the Jewish homeland and not merely that there be a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That, he assumed, is the commitment of the Balfour Declaration and will, of course, be confirmed by the Peace Conference.

Secondly, there must be economic elbow room for a Jewish Palestine; self sufficiency for a healthy social life. That meant adequate boundaries, not merely a small garden within Palestine. On the North that meant the control of the waters and he assumed that Great Britain was urging the northern boundary necessary for the control of the waters. That was a question substantially between England and France and, of course, must be determined by the Peace Conference. The southern and eastern boundaries, he assumed, raised internal British questions.
Mr. Balfour assented that that was so as to the southern boundary but questioned as to the eastern boundary.
The Justice added that, of course, the interests of the Hedjaz were involved, but after all, the disposition of questions between the Arabs and the Zionists was, in effect, an internal British problem. He urged on the east the Trans-Jordan line for there the land is largely unoccupied and settlement could be made without conflict with the Arabs much more easily than in the more settled portions of the North.
Mr. Balfour pointed out that in the East there is the Hedjaz railroad which can rightly be called a Mohammedan railroad.
The Justice replied that there is land right up to the railroad and Mr. Balfour stated that he thought that Feisul would agree to having an eastern boundary of Palestine go up to the Hedjaz railroad.

Thirdly, the Justice urged that the future Jewish Palestine must have control of the land and the natural resources which are at the heart of a sound economic life. It was essential that the values which are being and will be created because of the cessation of Turkish rule and due to British occupation and Jewish settlement should go to the State and not into private hands.
Mr. Balfour expressed entire agreement with the three conditions which the Justice laid down. He then proceeded to point out the difficulties which confronted England. [...]
The situation is further complicated by an agreement made early in November [1918] by the British and French, and brought to the President’s attention, telling the people of the East that their wishes would be consulted in the disposition of their future. One day in the Council of Four, when the Syrian matter was under dispute, the President suggested the despatch of a Commission to find out what the people really wanted. It began with Syria but the field of enquiry was extended over the whole East. Mr. Balfour wrote a memorandum to the Prime Minister, and he believed it went to the President, pointing out that Palestine should be excluded from the terms of reference because the Powers had committed themselves to the Zionist programme, which inevitably excluded numerical self-determination. Palestine presented a unique situation. We are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to re-constitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future. He has great difficulty in seeing how the President can possibly reconcile his adherence to Zionism with any doctrine of self-determination and he asked the Justice how he thinks the President will do it. The Justice replied that Mr. Balfour had already indicated the solution and pointed out that the whole conception of Zionism as a Jewish homeland, was a definite building up for the future as the means of dealing with a world problem and not merely with the disposition of an existing community. [...] F.F.

Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939 Series I Vol IV pp. 1276-78.
Memorandum by Mr. Frankfurter of an Interview in Mr. Balfour’s Apartment, 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Tuesday, June 24th, 1919, at 4-45 p.m.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3783076,00.html