74 thoughts on “J.J. Goldberg, Mahmoud Darwish: Brothers from Another Planet? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Mr. Silverstein, I don’t know whether this is a coincidence or you posted on Mahmoud Darwich on purpose on this day, which in the ‘the Old World’ is already August 9th, the day on which the great Palestinian poet passed away two years ago.

    Though the physical ressemblance is astonishing, I think Mahmoud Darwich would have been a better journalist than J.J. Goldberg, and as far as poetry is concerned, nobody reaches Darwich’s mastery of the Arabic language, in my opinion.

    Here is the Palestinian hip-hopper Shadia Mansour singing one of his most beautiful poems, a tribute to Palestine: “On this earth”. It’s worth listening till the end where she’s singing live:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgHOdmDnmJg&feature=related

    His memory will live eternally in our hearts.

  2. Darwish was indeed a remarkable poet. But he was also an implacable foe of Israel. Darwish ignored the long historical and emotional connection of the Jewish people to the land of their origin, which later became known as Palestine.
    He supported the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people, as he wrote in one of his well known poems, “Passers Between the Passing Words”:

    Dig up your dead
    take their bones with you and leave our land
    Live where you wish but do not live among us
    It is time for you to get out
    and die where you wish but do not die among us.

    Get out of our land
    our continent, our sea
    our wheat, our salt, our sore
    our everything, and get out
    of the memory of memories.

    Another poem “Identity Card” says:

    I don’t hate people,
    I trespass on no one’s property.
    And yet, if I were to become hungry
    I shall eat the flesh of my usurper.
    Beware, beware of my hunger
    And of my anger!

    Yes he was a great poet with a huge racist attitude.

    :

    1. The second poem doesn’t bother me at all & is not racist at all. The first is disturbing. But it is one poem and though I don’t know his work well enough, I’d guess that he expressed many differing views on that particular issue. If his views of Jewish Israelis were consistently as represented in that poem I’d be very distressed.

      The other thing you’re discounting is that the state of Israel rendered this man a non person, exiled him & never allowed him to return as a citizen of his native country. I cut someone like that a lot of slack.

      1. Richard, why would the sentiment of the first poem surprise or disturb you except on his behalf and on behalf of the other Palestinians who were so cruelly robbed of their birthright by Zionism? I find it absolutely normal and completely human under the circumstances for any Palestinian to include those types of sentiments in their collection of feelings.

        1. I find repugnant the notion that Jews should leave Israel. I can understand the suffering he experienced that would drive him to write this. But it doesn’t make it any easier to read as a Jew. He is saying that he wants all Jews to leave, not just the ones who stole his passport & exiled him, but all.

          1. Ah, but it is only your inference that he is saying Jews should leave the land. That is not what he said, nor is it necessarily what he intended to imply. On the contrary, I infer from that poem that he is not telling Jews to leave the land at all since there have been Jews there all along, and those Jews had nothing to do with the catastrophe that was visited upon him and the rest of the Palestinian people. I do not believe he is saying he wants all the Jews to leave, I believe he is saying he wants those to leave who think they have some exclusive right to the land. I base this on a certainly familiarity with his thinking and his work.

          2. Jacob didn’t reprint the whole poem “Passers Between the Passing Words”. I’ve tried in vain to find an English translation, but could only find the French which is beautifully translated by the Palestinian intellectual Elias Sanbar and the Arabic version is there as well with a recital by Darwish himself.
            http://anniebannie.net/2008/10/21/mahmoud-passants-parmi-des-paroles-passageres/

            And the entire poem “Identity Card” in English:
            http://www.arabworldbooks.com/Readers2003/articles/darwishpoems2.html#english

    2. Darwish ignored the long historical and emotional connection of the Jewish people to the land of their origin, which later became known as Palestine.

      The Zionists and later the Israelis have carefully ignored the long historical, emotional, and practical connection of Mahmoud Darwish and his fellow Palestinians to the land they were born in, grew up in, and lived in, and that their fathers and mothers were born in, lived in, and grew up in, and THEIR fathers and mothers, and THEIR fathers and mothers back and back and back for generation after generation. After all, how could that possibly matter as much as the connection claimed by a bunch of Europeans who had never set foot in Palestine, and who for the most part could not claim a single ancestor who had set foot their either.

      1. Nor most of those Europeans didn’t even want to go there in the first place, until the Holocaust was hung around their necks. And even then, their preference was the US and GB.

      2. More than enough of those europeans also wrote poems, books and whatnot about their feelings and wishes to live in Palestine. Theres no need to try so hard to prove there is /was absolutly no connection between European Jews and Palestine. Its about as useless as the attempt of the opposite side to show there is no connectoin between palestinians and this land (though its legitme to ask how long is “generation after generation”, but thats another topic for another thread)

        1. # y)
          You write “though it’s legitimate to ask how long is “generation after generation”.

          I know one should never answer a question by another question, but I would like to ask you in return:

          How many generations of European and Sephardic Jews does it take to legitimize the State of Israel ???

          I’ve always found the Zionist discourse very biased and ethnocentric: 2000 years of ‘absence’ does not prevent them from claiming the legitimacy of an exclusive Jewish state (that’a about 80 generations !!), and, on the other hand, 60 years of forced Palestinian exile is enough for the right of return to no longer be valid – that’s whar you are insinuating.

          After all, an Arab is an Arab is an Arab, and they’ve got another 22 countries . . . etc etc etc.

          1. Zionism’s aim was to reestablish the independent nation-state of the Jewish people in the land of its origin.
            One can understand the difficulty of Deir Yassin. After all, in all of recorded history, there is no precedent of another people being deprived of its territorial base for more than 1900 years, being dispersed all over the world, having no common language and still succeeding to reestablish its nation-state. If one adds to that, the revival of the Hebrew language, dead for many centuries, and now a robust tongue used in every walk of life, one can understand the magnitude of the unprecedented Zionist success.
            The Zionist movement never spoke about a “pure Jewish state”. In fact, in 1937, the prominent Zionist leader, Vladimir Zabotinsky, wrote that in the future Jewish state, if the Prime Minister is Jewish the vice-premier will be Arab and vice versa”. In 1923 he wrote in one of his well known poems: ”There (in the future state) will be happiness and prosperity for the son of the Arab, the son of the Christian and my son”.
            In 1947 he said: “In our state there will be non-Jews as well and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception, that is: the state will be their state as well.” In line with this conception, committees laying the groundwork for the nascent Jewish state discussed in detail the establishment of an Arabic-language press, Arab health care, incorporation of Arab officials into the government, integration of Arabs within the police and the ministry of education, and Arab-Jewish cultural and intellectual interaction.
            The Israeli Declaration of Independence clearly states that all citizens of Israel have equal rights, regardless of their gender, religion or ethnic origin.
            In summary Israel is not an “exclusive” Jewish state. It is the nation-state of the Jewish people just like Bulgaria is the nation-state of the Bulgarian people.

          2. one can understand the magnitude of the unprecedented Zionist success.

            One which the present Israeli leadership is doing its best to undermine, squander & destroy. That is, if you even accept the premise that Zionism as refracted through the lens of Bibi Netanyahu has been a success at all.

            As for all your other high-mindedness from Jabotinsky & the Declaration of Independence, it’s worth about as much as a sheet of toilet paper. We can certainly doubt Jabotinsky’s sincerity if he was serious about what he claimed to believe or want. But the actual State of Israel has never even come close to realizing any of the visions you enunciated. So it’s all horse manure you’re piling upon us, trying to make us believe it’s caviar.

          3. I explictly wrote “as useless as the attempt of the opposite side to show there is no connectoin between palestinians and this land”.
            Unlike many other israelis im not denying the nakba and many other crimes commited by Israeli government during the last 60 years. I do not think, however, 1,000,000 returning palestinians is something we can cope with as a state. As i wrote more than once already, i prefer an apartheid like israel than being a citizen of Egypt#2, or any other country where jews are again the minority.
            Creating a Palestinian state next to israel + compensating the palestinian refugees is a just enough solution, in my opinion.

          4. 1,000,000 returning palestinians

            First, Israel coped with 1 million “returning” Soviet Jews quite nicely. Second, no legitimate study shows 1 million Palestinians would return. A much more realistic number might be 400-600,000 if that.

            a just enough solution

            Well, it’s not up to you to determine what is “just enough.” It’s up to the Palestinians. And if you don’t convince them to take your offer you have endless war as your reward. So “just enough” isn’t enough. Not by a long shot. The solution must be just, period. You offer compensation to Palestinians & resettlement in Palestine. But for those who reject this, you must offer them the possibility they can resettle inside Israel. You simply must. There is no other alternative.

        2. Theres no need to try so hard to prove there is /was absolutly no connection between European Jews and Palestine.

          Oh, come on. You don’t gain anything by pretending people are saying things they are not saying. If you want to argue don’t make stuff up to argue against.

          1. “After all, how could that possibly matter as much as the connection claimed by a bunch of Europeans who had never set foot in Palestine, and who for the most part could not claim a single ancestor who had set foot their either.”

            Shirin, im not trying to gain anything
            and there are also lots of things u write that i agree with
            however here u simply wrote there was no connectin between jews and palestine (or what else did u mean by “couldn not claim a single ancestor?)

          2. No, I did not write that there is no connection between Jews and Palestine. If I wanted to say there was no connection between Jews and Palestine, I would say something like “Jews have no connection to Palestine”. However, I know far too much about my subject to ever say something as stupid as that.

            What I was pointing out was the absurdity of insisting that the connection of Jews to Palestine is greater, more important than, and supersedes the connection of the living people who were actually born there, grew up there, made their lives there, and whose family history there goes back continuously over generations, and in many cases centuries. How can the claim of someone who has never set foot in Palestine, and who cannot realistically claim any family history there possibly override that of someone whose families have inhabited the same patch of land, or the same city for generations?

            Pointing out the demonstrable fact that the overwhelming majority of European Jews could not trace their family history back to Palestine is certainly not the same thing as saying Jews have no connection to Palestine unless you believe that the only way to have a connection to a place is to be able to prove a family history there. The real point is that the legitimate inhabitants of a place have a far greater claim than those who do not regardless of religious or other traditions.

    3. # Jacob) “Yes, he was a great poet with a huge racist attitude”.
      Well, if you knew more about the life and poetry of Mahmoud Darwish, you would realize how ridiculous this is. He was born in 1941 in al-Birwah close to Akka, his family had to flee to Lebanon in 1948, and when they came back one year later illegally, the village was destroyed and replaced by a Jewish village. He grew up within the State of Israel, a stranger in his own land, always afraid of being discovered and expulsed once again.

      “He supported the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people”. What a joke !!! Darwish was a supporter of the One-State solution.

      Rita and the rifle

      http://haversford.edu/psych/ddavis/psych24/rita_and_the_rifle.html

      Read it carefully, please, and tell us whether this is the poem of a racist. It’s about the love of his life, the Jewish girl Rita, with whom he grew up and later shared a common life, before leaving Israel. Darwish never married.

      Marcel Khelifa singing ‘Rita and the Rifle’:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXWTpi-5u3w

      I’m sorry I didn’t find any video with the English subtitles, and the photos are really kitch ;-))

      There is a very beautiful one-hour documentary in French on the net by French-Israeli-Morrocan Simone Bitton, but I think there is a Hebrew version as well.

    4. the land of their origin, which later became known as Palestine.

      Don’t know how to break this to you, Jacob, but the land did not “later become known as Palestine”. There are references to various forms of the name Palestine dating from well before the Kingdoms of Judea and Samaria came into existence.

      1. The term “Palestine” derives from the Hebrew “Plesheth” (in English – Philistine). It means rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine’s invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were from Aegian origin. They were not Arabs, spoke no Arabic, and had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
        From the fifth century BCE, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean “the Philistine Syria” using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman “Provincia Judaea” and so renamed it “Provincia Syria Palaestina”, the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. That name was retained for a time by the Arab conquerors to designate an administrative subdivision of their Syrian province. The name had disappeared from the region prior to the arrival of the Crusaders. The term was rediscovered in Europe at the time of the Renaissance and used to refer to what European Christians previously called the Holy Land. The name was not used officially, and had no precise territorial definition until it was adopted by the British to designate the area which they acquired by conquest at the end of World War I and ruled under mandate from the League of Nations.
        I will repeat: The Jews became a people some 3500 years ago in the area which later became known as Palestine. The Mernaptah stele (1200 BCE) mentions Israel, indicating that it was a significant socioethnic entity.

        1. all historians agree that the merneptah stele “israel” reference is to a group of nomadic people and not to a designated land. as far as the palestinians of palestine i think of them as those who lived for 2000 years in the area which later (and only recently) became known as israel.

        2. # Jacob)
          A typical Zionist hasbara trick is starting a discussion on the legacy of the Palestinian people by referring to the ‘non-existence’ of a historical reality called Palestine.

          I do agree with Azmi Bishara who always answers – and he has been asked a thousand times when he still lived in Israel – “I believe that the Arab world is my homeland. I am an Arab Palestinian”. The Palestinians are the people who lived and live in Palestine, and no Zionist propaganda can change that.

          Your post on the anteriority of the Jewish people in whatever you call the place is supposed to justify the return after 2000 years ?? Did they leave a sign on the door when they left: “Don’t touch. Will be back soon” ? And the Jews who stayed behind, and who partly converted to Islam, the non-Jewish population who lived in the area alongside the Jews, none of it matters, only the Jewish narration ??

        3. Nice Google/Copy/Paste job from Zionist sources, Jacob. Of course, the stuff is all very very selectively Jewish/Zionist-centric, and neither complete nor completely accurate, and includes the usual boring, irrelevant nonsense intended to delegitimize the Palestinians and make us believe that having ruled the land briefly thousands of years ago gives Jews a claim that is superior to that of the current inhabitants.

          [The Philistines] were not Arabs, spoke no Arabic, and had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

          Yeah, so? What has that to do with anything at all? The Palestinians’ claim is based on the fact that they were the legitimate inhabitants of Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the Zionists decided to take it over. Whether or not the Philistines spoke Arabic could not possibly be more irrelevant.

          When or where the Jews supposedly became a people is also utterly irrelevant.

          1. The fact that the Palestinian Jewish community under the leadership of the Zionist movement accepted the UN partition plan in 1947, shows that it accepted the existence of two peoples in Mandatory Palestine and their right to political self-determination and statehood. Had the Palestinians done the same, their independent state would have been 62 y old today, side by side with Israel, there would have been no refugees and the lives of thousands on both sides would have been spared.
            And of course, when Hadrian changed the name of Provincia Judea to Provincia Syria-Palestina and the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitulina, he did it as part of his Jewish-centric attitude….

          2. it accepted the existence of two peoples in Mandatory Palestine

            It shows no such thing. But it sure is interesting to hear pro Israel advocates, who usually deny the existence of a Palestinian people, make the case that there was one going back to 1947. The Zionist movement wanted recognition of its new state & was willing to compromise to get it. The proposed compromise certainly didn’t mean the Jews were willing to recognize the existence of a Palestinian people.

            Had the Palestinians done the same, their independent state would have been 62 y old today, side by side with Israel,

            You’re chock full of the usual hasbara themes, & boy does it get annoying. I can’t tell you the number of times others have said the exact same thing here. It wasn’t any more convincing the 1st, 5th, or 10th time they tried it than it was when you did.

          3. # Jacob)
            “The fact that the Palestinian Jewish community under the leadership of the Zionist movement accepted the UN partition plan in 1947 . . . “.

            First of all, the Jews of the Old Yichouv were in their large majority AGAINST the establishment of a Jewish state. The Askenaze coming during the five aliyot were of course partisans of a Jewish state, that’s primarily why they came to Palestine. From a Palestinian point of view, those were colonizers – 1900 years of absence or not !

            As far as the partition is concerned, you are wrong. If you read Ben Gourion, you will realize that the acceptance of a Jewish state on 55 % of historical Palestine was only supposed to be a first step towards a Jewish state in all of Mandatory Palestine.

            And the Arabs proposed a ‘Federal Plan’ on Nov 27 1947, based on the recommendation of India, Iran and Yougoslavia. Tom Segev has written an article on the Arab proposal in Haaretz some years ago. It’s on the net, something like ‘How we missed the Swiss option’.

            And in answer to your post on the “reestablishment of the independent nation-state of the Jewish people in the land of their origins”, this is simply too ridiculous.

            I know the Jews are bright folks :-)) but the notion of ‘nation-state’ is belonging to contemporary history and you are trying to justify a historical reality with a modern political concept. This is an anachronism – another trick of hasbara spinning.

            And in this ‘independent nation-state of the Jewish people’ 2000 years ago, did you also have a constitution, the HaTikva and the Magen David were already existent, and the borders were already traced ???

            By referring to Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, you tell us all from where you speak, though I do prefer a righ-wing like Jabotinsky who at least was clear about his political goals. So if you’re trying to convince us that Jabotinsky was in favor of a binational state, I think you are wasting your time. Mythological hasbara spinning.

        4. By the way, Jacob, despite your excellent, completely Jewish-centric Google/copy/past job, you didn’t get it right. The name Palestine is derived from the Akkadian. Aramaean, Egyptian, and Hebrew had similar words to refer to the Philistines, all most likely taken from the Akkadian.

          1. not more than explaining to us the origins of the name “palestine” and arguing about it with jacob – only to write two posts later that
            “The Palestinians’ claim is based on the fact that they were the legitimate inhabitants of Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the Zionists decided to take it over. Whether or not the Philistines spoke Arabic could not possibly be more irrelevant.”
            So if the origin of the name palestine is irrelevant (and indeed it is not relevant to the modern day conflict) – why did u have the need to explain it / bring it up at first place?

            I actually wanted to ask the same question about saddam hussein, but maybe ill leave that to the original thread.

  3. Although Darwish is more sympathetic looking than Goldberg (is that a prejudice of mine?), there is a resemblance of both to Harry Potter.

  4. “the tired, liberal Zionist newspaper editorialist”

    oh c’mon. Have your disagreements with Goldberg, but
    this this does you no credit. There are things in the
    Forward I don’t agree with, certainly, to say the least, but overall it’s got lots of interesting stuff, and they publish Eli Valley. Why “tired”?

    Also, your “related posts” refer to Jeffrey Goldberg.

    1. J.J. is old (in mind, not body), tired & washed up. His views are hopelessly liberal & out of touch with anything but the Zionist mainstream. He once was a proud, engaging innovative thinker. No longer. For me, he’s much like Tom Friedman except that J.J. had better leftist credentials.

      As for the Forward, Jane Eisner has blackballed me for criticizing the Forward for taking blood money fr. the Republican Jewish Coalition which lied about Barack Obama’s so called anti Israel views. Are you proud of such pettiness & narrow mindedness on her part? I think highly of Larry Cohler Esses however.

      Related Posts is a plugin that links to other posts which the plugin thinks might be relevant to this one. I don’t control which posts it chooses.

  5. To Richard,

    By accepting the UN partition plan, which called for the establishment of TWO states in Mandatory Palestine, the Zionists accepted the principle of the territorial compromise. TWO states means TWO peoples. Those are the facts. Anti-Zionists like to disregard facts but they can not eliminate them.

    1. Yes, they accepted territorial compromise on their own ambitions. But this says nothing about the Zionist attitude toward the native Palestinian inhabitants. Very few leading Zionists cared a whit what the Palestinians did as long as it didn’t interfere w. their own national ambitions. So once again you’re arguing far beyond yr range. They didn’t recognize two states or two peoples. They accepted a compromise (or as another commenter noted here, Ben Gurion accepted a temporary arrangement he would’ve broken at the first opportunity if he could realize his ambition of an expanded Jewish state) of THEIR OWN territorial ambitions.

  6. To Dear Yassin,

    First, in my previous post it was not clear that it was Ben Gurion who said in 1947, that “In our state there will be non-Jews as well and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception, that is: the state will be their state as well.” Jabotinsky died in 1940.
    As for the partition. “New historian”, Benny Moriris wrote: “By November 1947, the Zionists’ reconciliation to a partial realization of their dreams was complete (except on the fringes of the movement), and Zionism’s mainstream, led by Ben-Gurion and Weizmann, once and for all internalized the necessity of partition and accepted the U.N. partition resolution.”
    And, the independent Jewish state of antiquity was as independent as that term applied to their time. No, there was no Hatikva and no Shield of David but there was the Menorah, which is now the emblem of the state of Israel. And the residents spoke Hebrew, which (together with Arabic) is the official language in Israel.
    BTW, the oldest Shield of David was found in the remains of 3rd century synagogue in the Galilee.
    As for “colonisers”. The fact is that there is not a single colonial power, whose people had any historical connection with the land they colonized. The English did not became a people in India, or the French in Algeria or the Dutch in South Africa. But, it is an undeniable historical fact that the Jews became a people in ancient Canaan some 3500 y ago. And, every colonial movement had a “mother country” behind it. There was no such entity behind the Jewish settlement in Palestine. They came, according to the laws of the Ottoman Empire and then the British Mandate, bought land and settled down.
    During the centuries there was always a Jewish presence in Palestine. Neither the Jews who came to Jerusalem in 1200, or the Jews who came to Safed in 1500, or the Jews who came in the 19th and 20th centuries are colonialists.
    By 1947, there were 650,000 Jews in Palestine and they had the right to political self-determination. They fought for it and got it.
    No, Jabotinsky was not in favor of a bi-national state. He was in favor of a Jewish state in which all citizens will have equal rights, regardless of their religion or ethnic origin.

    1. # Jacob)
      One needs to write a thesis to refute your writings, and I’m not gonna do that, don’t worry.
      You mixed up Ben Gourion and Jabotinsky in your former post, but you still want to make us believe that the latter was in favor of a Jewish state in which all citizens have equal rights. Fine, you just forgot the essential point: Jabotinsky was in favor of driving out all the Arabs of Palestine. You might have missed that when you read “The Iron Wall” !

      In your former post you wrote on ‘the reestablishment of the Jewish nation-state’ and now you write ‘Jewish state’. There is a huge difference between a ‘nation-state’ and a ‘state’, and I don’t know whether you are a specialist of Bulgaria when you write: “Israel is not an ‘exclusive’ Jewish state. It is the nation-state of the Jewish people just as Bulgaria is the nation-state of the Bulgarian people”.

      That’s another hasbara trick: Israel is not the state of the Jewish people as France is the State of the French. First of all, it’s ‘Jewish’, the indigenous Arab population is not Jewish which is a religious or ethnic group, and NOT a nationality. In France, Jews, Catholics and Muslims have the same constitional rights, they are French which is not an ethnic group but a nationality. You can become a French citizen. How do you become a ‘Jewish citizen’ ?
      Israel has equal rights, theoretically, for its JEWISH citizens. Don’t even try to convince me of equall rights for what they call ‘Israeli Arabs’ but who consider themselves Palestinians.

      I made the distinction between the Jews of the Old Yichouv and the Askenaze comming during the aliyot, you don’t. You mix them up in order to hide the colonial enterprise of Zionism. I know and understand that Zionism was a national liberation movement from a Jewish point of view, and I’m aware of the immense injustices the Jewish people endured in Europe for centuries, but whether you like it or not, from a Palestinian point of view, those olim were colonizers. Unfortunately, the Arabs found out too late.

      When the Zionist movement sent a couple of Rabbis to the Holy Land to know whether it was a suitable place, the Rabbis sent a message back to Vienna: “The bride is beautiful but she’s already married to another man”. And that is also the title of a book by the Palestinian intellectual Ghada Karmi that I recommend.

      What you write might be correct from a Jewish/Israeli point of view, but you clearly have no place for the indigenous Palestinian population in your narration, nor the slightest empathy for their history, reality or present suffering.

      Reading the poetry of Mahmoud Darwish could be an opportunity to ‘walk in another man’s shoes’, but your selective ‘cutting’ of his poems in your first comment shows that you only use him for propaganda purpose, so keep on spinning.

      1. Jabotinsky wrote the article “The Iron Wall” in 1923. Contrary to your assertion he was not in favor of driving out all the Arabs of Palestine. Here is a quote from the beginning of the article:
        “The author of these lines is considered to be an enemy of the Arabs, a proponent of their expulsion, etc. This is not true. …the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine is absolutely impossible in any form. There will always be two nations in Palestine. …. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This depends, not on our relationship with the Arabs, but exclusively on the Arabs’ relationship to Zionism.”
        Jabotinsky thought the Zionist objective, establishing a Jewish state, will not be accepted by the Arabs, unless a strong defense exists. That was the meaning of the term Iron Wall. And he was right, both in the pre-state time and after.
        You forget that while Christians, Muslims or Budhists denote groups who believe in a certain religion, Jews are a people, some of which are religious and some are not. Religious and non-religious Jews belong to the same people. That people has the same right to political self-determination as any other. I am sure you are familiar with the long history of the Jewish people, which had no territorial base for many centuries and religion was the principal identification. Then came the Zionist movement,
        whose central objective was to make the Jews into a nation like any other. And, to the regret of many, it succeeded. It overcame the opposition of the ultra-religious part of the Old Yishuv.
        In Israel, which is the name of the Jewish state, you became a citizen by being born to Israeli citizens, regardless of their religion or by applying to the Department of Interior.
        Like many other nation-states, Israel has minorities. And just like in many other states there is discrimination against those minorities. However, in Israel, one can explain that discrimination by the state of war in which Israel has found itself since its founding. In spite of that, from the beginning, Israel has strived to have equality for all, as written in its Declaration of Independence. For instance, when the state was founded, Israel acknowledged the collective rights of Arabs in the realm of education. Israeli Arabs thus have the right to educate their children in a separate framework, according to their own culture and language. And Arabic is one of the official languages in Israel.
        The parliament passed three laws in the year 2000 recognizing Israeli Arabs as a group with collective rights: The first, an amendment to the State Education Law, defines the Arab population as a group, deserving to be treated as such, for the first time. The second is the Amendment to the Government Companies Law, which states that in the composition of the Board of Directors of a government company, appropriate expression will be given to representation for the Arab population. The third, an amendment to the Civil Service Law, institutes the principle of affirmative action for Arabs in government jobs.
        The Supreme Court has also handed down several decisions that make significant progress towards recognition of Israeli Arabs collective rights. The court determined, for example, that there should be equality in budgetary allocations for Jewish and Arab municipalities; that the Arab population should have appropriate representation on the board of the Israel Lands Authority;
        These legal and jurisprudential developments bring Israel closer to the standards set by Europe in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
        There is certainly room for improvement in Israel where liberalism and democracy are concerned. Yet as a modern nation-state, Israel is not all that exceptional when compared with other countries, especially those in Europe.
        Israel has no state religion. It recognizes Judaism, Islam and Christianity. The rabbis, imams and priests are in fact paid by the government. Israel recognizes the Islamic religious courts just like it recognizes the Jewish religious courts, and pays the salaries of the clerks and judges.
        And I am very familiar with the suffering of the Palestinian Arabs but here is what historian Benny Morris writes on the subject:
        “The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948 occurred against the backdrop, and as the result, of a war-
        -a war that for the Jews was a matter of survival, and which those same Palestinians and their Arab brothers had launched. To omit this historical background is bad history–and stark dishonesty And what befell the Palestinians was something the Palestinians brought down upon themselves, with their own decisions and actions, their own historical agency. But they like to deny their historical agency, and many “sympathetic” outsiders like to abet them in this illusion, which is significantly responsible for their continued statelessness.”
        All that does not mean that in 1948 the Jews were “right” and the Arabs were “wrong.” But the Palestinians’ complete unwillingness to acknowledge that in 1948 they and their leaders made a terrible historic mistake – of both political and moral proportions – by rejecting the international compromise they were offered, is very unfortunate.
        If the Palestinians admit their responsibility, even a minute and partial one, for the Nakba, it will be a very important step toward reaching a true compromise between the parties.

        1. This is absolutely not a forum for the debate or discussion of the views or philosophy of Jabotinsky & if that’s you interest you will go elsewhere for it. Most of the rest of us know what Jabotinsky stood for. If you want to pretend that he presented any sort of realistic plan that ever could’ve led to rapprochment or peaceful co-existence with Palestine’s Arabs you’ve taken leave of yr senses. The passage you state in fact reveals how completely disingenuous he was about how & whether his views would be perceived by the Arabs.

          Jabotinsky was not “right” as you claim. In fact, his views are the root of the horror that is current Israeli policy and the root of the evil that is the Occupation. Jabotinskyism means death for Israel. Nothing but death.

          in Israel, one can explain that discrimination by the state of war in which Israel has found itself since its founding.

          “Explain it?” Hardly. The discrimination is inexplicable & indefensible & renders pasul the Israeli aspiration to be a democracy.

          Israel has strived to have equality for all, as written in its Declaration of Independence.

          “Strived?” How has it striven? By providing equal budget subsidies for Arab towns & villages? By giving Palestinian Israelis an equal right to build home & lease or own property? By giving them equal quality educations? Equal job opportunities? Equal political power? Tell me why no Israeli governing coalition will invited an Arab party to join it? So where is all this striving? And what, truly, is Israel’s Declaration of Independence worth? A kopek? A grush? An agora? If that?

          Arabic is one of the official languages in Israel.

          If that’s true, how much Arabic do you know? How much Arabic can you speak? How many yrs did you study it? Or do you really mean that Arabs are allowed to learn & speak the language themselves but no Israeli Jew would have much interest in learning it? The latter more likely. When Israeli Jews as a matter of course learn & speak Arabic both in & outside school, then Arabic will truly be an Israeli national language. Till then it’s a language you’ve placed in a linguistic ghetto: for Arabs only.

          If Israel has legislated so many rights & benefits for Palestinian citizens can you show me any standards under which they enjoy benefits, quality of life or living standards remotely comparable to Jews? Can you show me any studies that show there has been a marked improvement in any of these indicators for Palestinian Israelis?? Is there indeed genuine equality in funding Jewish & Arab communities?? Do Arabs have representation on the ILA & can Arabs own or lease ILA land?? You as well as I know the answers to all these questions (or almost all of them) is an absolute NO. So don’t tell me what Israel has claimed it would do or said it would do or legislated that it would do or ruled it would do. Tell me Israel IS doing. And that ain’t much.

          For starters why don’t you explain the designation of 30 Bedouin communities which all predate the State as unrecognized communities subject to destruction?? Explain why your State is turning Al Araqeeb into the Jerusalem over whose destruction Jeremiah wept??

          These legal and jurisprudential developments bring Israel closer to the standards set by Europe in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

          Is that why the Shin Bet routinely harrasses all Arab MKs threatening them with arrest, even forcing them into exile? Is that why the secret police routinely arrest, interrogate, torture & imprison community leaders?

          There is certainly room for improvement in Israel

          Gee, d’ya think??

          as a modern nation-state, Israel is not all that exceptional when compared with other countries, especially those in Europe.

          That must be why the rest of the world has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, acknowledged the legitimacy of the Occupation, & agreed with Israel there should be no Palestinian state. That must be why the world recognizes Israel as a paragon of democracy & western liberal values? That must be why Israeli tourists are welcomed so warmly wherever they go & never have to hide their identity to avoid unpleasantness fr. the natives.

          Israel recognizes the Islamic religious courts just like it recognizes the Jewish religious courts, and pays the salaries of the clerks and judges.

          Glad you mentioned that. Can you tell me why Islam is the only religion that the Israeli authorities actually reject candidates nominated by the Muslim community? Can you show me a single Jewish or Christian cleric thus rejected?

          I am very familiar with the suffering of the Palestinian Arabs but here is what historian Benny Morris writes on the subject

          Benny Morris. Benny Morris. Benny Morris. If you repeat it often enough & fast enough it becomes like a talisman that will protect you fr. actually dealing with the subject at hand. Benny Morris is not a figure with any credence or credibility here. He is a justifier of Nakba. An advocate of war with Iran. An out & out ideological zealot who’s taken leave of his political senses, if he ever had any.

          a war that for the Jews was a matter of survival, and which those same Palestinians and their Arab brothers had launched.

          Ah, I see. The Arabs launched the war & the Jews had nothing to do with that fact? The declaration of statehood wasn’t a wee bit of provocation that may’ve provoked that war? Please. Benny Morris is an apologist for ethnic cleansing. What can we learn from such a person?

          If the Palestinians admit their responsibility, even a minute and partial one, for the Nakba

          NO, absolutely not. Even if the Arabs started the war, which I don’t concede in the terms you have articulated, that in no way whatsoever justifies the Nakba. There was absolutely no need for Israel to expel up to 1 million of its own citizens. It did not need to do so to either fight or win that war. So no, the Palestinians are not responsible for their own victimization. The fact that you have the unmitigated chutzpah, like the attorney defending the rapist to suggest that the victim is at fault for his or her suffering is truly despicable. But alas I expect that of ideologues like you.

          Now I’m going to write something very clearly & carefully to you. You are done with this subject & with this thread. The subject you have taken up is completely off topic. Plus you’re merely grandstanding & spouting pro Israel hasbara. Doing a half way decent job of it. But that’s not the purpose of this blog or the threads. If you have a comment to make about the posts themselves & their content, do so. But if you want to write a treatise on how well Israel treats its Arabs, this is the wrong place to do so.

          So I can’t tell you any more clearly not to continue in this vein. The debate is over for you. Period.

          1. Benny Morris is a very odd person. He made discoveries about 1948, and was honest enough to present the facts, but has proven absolutely incapable of interpreting them in anything like a rational manner. Others have done a far better job of analyzing his work than he ever will.

          2. Just to remind you, it was Dear Yassin who claimed that Jabotinsky supported the expulsion of all the Arabs from Palestine. I brought the quote showing that Dear Yassin was wrong. As expected, facts are immaterial to you.
            And, he definitely right. Without the army (“The Iron Wall) Israel would not have existed today.
            And, the the war did not start on May 15, 1948. In fact the Arabs started military attacks on the Jewish
            population in Palestine immediately after the UN vote on the 29th of November 1947. The very next day, a civilian bus was ambushed on his way from Petach Tikva to Lydda. Five Jews were murdered and seven wounded. That was the beginning of the war and that is why it should be called the 1947-48 war and not just the 1948 war. The terror attacks on the Jewish population went and intensified. Attacks on the roads and on isolated
            villages became a frequent occurrence. The Arab Liberation Army, under the command of Kaukji attacked Kfar Szold in the upper Galilee in January 1948. That same month the village of Kfar Etzion was attacked by a group led by Abd el Kader el-Huseini. Later Yehiam and Tirat Tzvi
            were attacked. The Arabs were able to disrupt the Jewish lines of communications and succeeded in blocking some major axes to Jewish traffic, like the road to Jerusalem. The Jews responded and an atmosphere of continuous warfare enveloped the country. This caused many thousands of Arabs to flee so as to avoid the battles. By April 1948, a month before Israel’s declaration of independence and before the invasion of the Arab regular armies, more than 100,000 Palestinians have left. There are plenty of testimonials to that. For instance, the Arab academic Ibrahim Abu Lughod who fled Jaffa recalls: “The Belgian ship was full of people from Jaffa, one of the sailors asked:”Why do not you stay and fight?”
            Another intellectual, Hiram Sharabi who left Palestine in December of 1947 for the US and three decades later asked himself: “How we could leave our country when an war is raging and the Jews are gearing themselves to devour Palestine”. The British High Commissioner for
            Palestine, General Cunningham wrote: “The collapsing Arab morale in Palestine is in some measure due to the increasing tendency of those who should be leading them to leave the country…..in all parts of the country the effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over
            a considerable period and the tempo is increasing.”
            And Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib summed up: “The Palestinians had the neighboring Arab states which opened their borders and doors to the refugees , while the Jews had no alternative but to triumph or to die”.
            Of course, for the fanatic anti-Zionists all that does not count. And they do not think that the Arabs started the war….
            Here is another document published by Benny Morris, that you “like” so much:
            “On March 24, 1948, Yisrael Galili, the head of the Haganah National Command, the political leadership of the organization, issued a secret blanket directive to all brigades and units to abide by long-standing official Zionist policy toward the Arab communities in the territory of the emergent Jewish state–to secure “the full rights, needs, and freedom of the Arabs in the Hebrew state without discrimination” and to strive for “co-existence with freedom and respect,” as he put it. And this was not a document devised for Western or U.N. eyes, with a propagandistic purpose; it was a secret, blanket, internal operational directive, in Hebrew.”
            And he continues: “It was only at the start of April, with its back to the wall (much of the Yishuv, in particular Jewish Jerusalem, was being strangled by Arab ambushes along the roads) and facing the prospect of pan-Arab invasion six weeks hence, that the Haganah changed its strategy and went over to the offensive, and began uprooting Palestinian communities, unsystematically and without a general policy. Needless to say, the invasion by the combined armies of the Arab states on May 15 only hardened Yishuv hearts toward the Palestinians who had summoned the invaders, whose declared purpose–as Azzam Pasha, the secretary-general of the Arab League, put it–was to re-enact a Mongol-like massacre, or, as others said, to drive the Jews into the sea. ”
            In short, the Arabs started the war. The Jews won that war but paid a very heavy price, 6,000 dead, a whole one percent of the total Jewish population at that time. If the US had lost that percent in Vietnam it would have lost 2.5 million solders.
            And the declaration of statehood was done according to the UN decision. Those, like you, who consider the declaration a provocation, show their enormous anti-Israel bias.
            An official language does not have to be known by every citizen. In New Zealand, for example, the Māori language has official status even though it is spoken by less than five percent of the New Zealand population.
            You can go to the national archives in Israel and read for yourself the amendment published on May 19, 1948, removing English and leaving Hebrew and Arabic as the official languages of Israel.
            I criticize harshly l he Israeli settlement policy after
            1967. Not because the Jewish people has no historic rights on all of mandatory Palestine, but because another people lives there and the territorial compromise is a must today like it was on 1947. Without it we will end up with a bi-national state, which means the end of the nation-state of the Jewish people.

          3. Jabotinsky supported the expulsion of all the Arabs from Palestine.

            I have no doubt that if you are right & Jabotinsky did not support the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine it was only because he died before this policy could actually be carried out. Had he lived till 1948 he certainly would have supported the Nakba as Benny Morris now does.

            Without the army (“The Iron Wall) Israel would not have existed today.

            Neither I nor many people here are claiming Israel should not have an army. We’re claiming that the army it does have is vicious, cruel, violates international law & the laws of war, & maintains an insupportable Occupation. Most reasonable people conceded that Israel should have & needs an army. But it needs an army more like Switzerland’s & less like ours in Iraq & Afghanistan.

            As for yr recital of ancient history: read what I’m about to say very carefully. My comment rules make crystal clear that the comment threads SHALL NOT be used to refight old battles & wars. I have absolutely no interest in assigning guilty or innocence for past history. That’s something I’ll leave for historians of the period. I will not allow you to hijack my comment threads for this purpose. If you do this again you’re outa here. Do you understand?? You better. My finger is on the button as far as you are concerned. It would take very little to move me to end yr comment privileges.

            The Arabs attacked Israel because it unilaterally declared independence, which was in effect equivalent to an act of war. Ben Gurion knew the Arabs would attack when he declared statehood. Therefore the claim that Jews were innocent victims of Arab aggression is totally bogus as are you & yr arguments.

            the Palestinians who had summoned the invaders

            Provide one piece of credible evidence that Palestinians as a group “summoned” the invaders? I don’t doubt you may find some Palestinian at the time who you can trot out to prove that a single Palestinian did so. But prove that this was the sentiment or belief of a majority or even a strong minority of Palestinians. If you can’t you’re worse than ignorant since you’ve made a declarative statement you can’t support. I suffer neither fools nor propagandists, esp. ones that distort & lie, gladly.

            Those, like you, who consider the declaration a provocation, show their enormous anti-Israel bias.

            Yes, indeed, all those other ZIonists like Magnes & others who favored waiting for the declaration of statehood knowing it would start a bloody war, all of them were anti Israel too. So anti-Israel that they lived in the country and helped run some of its most important institutions. Yes, anti-Israel all. What crap are you peddling?

          4. Jacob, will say one thing for you. You are a veritable master of the Google/copy/paste technique of argument. Congratulations.

    2. Zionism’s mainstream, led by Ben-Gurion and Weizmann, once and for all internalized the necessity of partition and accepted the U.N. partition resolution.”

      Benny Morris is credible when he is quoting archival documents & sticking close to facts. He is not good when he make judgments or generalizations about the motives or thinking of Zionist leaders. Ben Gurion could just as easily have decided to accept Partition as a temporary accomodation with political reality.

      the residents spoke Hebrew, which (together with Arabic) is the official language in Israel.

      Not quite. The language spoken in ancient Israel, at least in Talmudic times was Aramaic or something very close to it. Hebrew was the language of sacred text & liturgy. And since when is Arabic a national language of Israel? Would you care to support that claim?

      it is an undeniable historical fact that the Jews became a people in ancient Canaan some 3500 y ago.

      In this field, there is no such thing as an undeniable historical fact,” and when someone uses such a loaded term they’re blowin’ smoke. There may be historical evidence & historical claims that this is so, but that is not the same as undeniable historical fact. YOU’re a tendentious propagandaist for classical Zionism & a pro Israel booster. Facts & nuance matter very little to you.

      1. The Talmud was written after 200 CE. Almost half of it is in Hebrew. And you can visit the Istanbul Archeology Museum and take a look at the Shiloach inscription, made during the time of the Judean King Hezekiah in the 8th century BCE. It is written in Hebrew, that any Israeli can understand.
        For somebody who claims that facts matter to him, it is surprising that you do not know that Arabic is one of the two official languages in Israel.
        Here is the item in the Wikipedia:
        “Currently, there are two official languages in Israel: Hebrew and Arabic. English, which has semi-official status, is used extensively at all levels of society. The main law governing language policy is the 82nd paragraph of the “Palestine Order in Council” issued on August 14, 1922, for the British Mandate of Palestine:
        All Ordinances, official notices and official forms of the Government and all official notices of local authorities and municipalities in areas to be prescribed by order of the High Commissioner, shall be published in English, Arabic and Hebrew.
        This law, like most other laws of the British Mandate, was adopted in the State of Israel, subject to certain amendments published by the provisional legislative branch on May 19, 1948. The amendment (paragraph 15-b) states that:
        Any order in the law which requires the use of the English language is hereby abolished. ”

        And, it would be interesting if you can find any historian
        who denies that the Jews became a people in ancient Canaan.
        Yes I am a Zionist and very proud of it. Facts are extremely important to me. I criticize harshly many of the policies of Israel but I strongly support its right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

        1. I have not read you criticizing anything about Israel. Nothing. So I’m afraid your claims are just that. Not proven by any evidence & therefore empty.

          Half the Talmud is NOT written in Hebrew. I majored in Talmud in college. Biblical sources are quoted in Hebrew when referenced in the Talmud. But contemporary halachic discourse in the text is always in Aramaic. And this is the preponderance of the substance of the text.

          BTW, according to your Wikipedia definition (& why do you rely on Wikipedia as a source instead of an official Israeli gov’t site, which would be far more persuasive) English is an official language of Israel since the Mandatory law demanded all official notices be published in English. We know that this is not the case in modern Israel. So I’d like to see an official Israeli gov’t acknowledgement that Arabic is an official national lang. before believing you.

      2. en Gurion could just as easily have decided to accept Partition as a temporary accomodation with political reality.

        The documentary evidence along with his own actions leaves no doubt at all that he never had any intention of accepting the partition boundaries as anything but temporary:

        “Every school child knows that there is no such thing in history as a final arrangement — not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements.”— Ben Gurion, War Diaries, 12/03/1947 following Israel’s “acceptance” of the U.N. Partition of 11/29/1947 (Simha Flapan, “Birth of Israel,” p.13)

        In fact, he had no intention of ever accepting even the 1949 armistice boundaries as Israel’s borders. It was he who made the decision against Israel declaring any borders at all, and he made it quite clear that the purpose of refusing to declare borders was to allow for future expansion.

        …the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders— it’s an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country’s borders, so there’s no real limit. No border is absolute. If it’s a desert— it could just as well be the other side. If it’s sea, it could also be across the sea. (1949, The First Israelis, Tom Segev, p. 6,)

    3. How cute that you are quoting pretty statements Ben Gurion made for purposes of P.R. For every pretty-sounding statement of his you can quote, I can quote several statements and/or actions of his that contradict them.

      Zionism’s mainstream, led by Ben-Gurion and Weizmann, once and for all internalized the necessity of partition and accepted the U.N. partition resolution.

      Yeah, right. That is why when, in February, 1948, well before the Arabs supposedly started the war, a member of the Mapai Council expressed concern that the Zionists had been granted no land in a particular region Ben Gurion reassured him that “The war will give us the land. The concepts of “ours” and “not ours” are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning” (Ben-Gurion, War Diary, Vol. 1, entry dated 6 February 1948. p.211)

      Since you claim to be very devoted to facts you might like to know that there is more than enough documentary evidence, as well as the history of Zionist/Israeli actions, to prove that Zionist leaders, with Ben-Gurion at the helm absolutely did not accept the U.N partition resolution as defining Israel’s final borders. Far from it, in fact. They accepted the partition resolution only as the thin end of the wedge that they would use to eventually expand Israel’s territory to include, at the very least, all of historic Palestine. Why else do you suppose that Israel has not to this day formally declared its borders?

  7. An off topic question, but how do i quote? i tried different combos of quote/blockquote but none seemed to work..

    “First, Israel coped with 1 million “returning” Soviet Jews quite nicely. Second, no legitimate study shows 1 million Palestinians would return. A much more realistic number might be 400-600,000 if that.”
    Richard, i’ve seen u doing this comparison before, and its knda like comparing oranges with apples. Even if we assume none of the ex-soviets are jews (and i – as an ex soviet jew – can promise u at least some of us are jews) – theres still a difference between million immigrants, and even 400,000 of palestinians, who dont exactly see themselves as the best friends of the jews here (and vice versa too). Besides, its not just letting another 400,000 people in. where would they live? work? study? Its hard for any state to accept 400,000 immigrants at one phase, and im not sure people from places like Balata refugee camp have some sort of education which allow them to pay for their living – especially when the local jewish population wont be exactly eager to help them.

    “Well, it’s not up to you to determine what is “just enough.” It’s up to the Palestinians. And if you don’t convince them to take your offer you have endless war as your reward. So “just enough” isn’t enough. Not by a long shot. The solution must be just, period. You offer compensation to Palestinians & resettlement in Palestine. But for those who reject this, you must offer them the possibility they can resettle inside Israel. You simply must. There is no other alternative.”

    Yes there is. “Justice” is not an absolute term. Either both sides compromise on something, or there will be a going on war for ever. If you believe in absolute justice – you must insist jews leave central t-a, where few palestinian villages were once located, but as far as im familiar with ur views/ believes u dont call for jews to leave israel, right?
    So ur “justice” is one way to compromise for both sides, and mine is another. Creating a what we call in hebrew “Shaatnez” here will not work, but only cause greater problems. Especially if u consider what i wrote above.

    1. …Either both sides compromise on something…

      I love it when the thief self-righteously insists that the victim must compromise with him on the return of the stolen property.

      And how much more compromise would you require of the Palestinians than you have already received? They have already agreed to concede 57% of their homeland. They have also shown great flexibility on East Jerusalem, and have put on the table several compromise proposals, all of which the Israelis have rejected out of hand. On the other side, where are Israel’s compromises? Taking more and more and more and destroying more and more and more while whining about “painful concessions”?

      And don’t even get me started on the Golan Heights.

      1. Shirin, i didnt steal anything from anyone, and as a matter of fact the land i live on was bought from palestinians (yes that also happend in more than enough places.).
        I dojnt know who rejected what – i didnt take part in camp david or any other negotiations (and im assuming you didnt either), so my knowledge – just as urs – on the rejected proposals is based on what we’ve read on subject.
        From my point of view it seems that both the palestinian and the israeli leaders were not interested in ending the conflict – each side with his own reasons.

        I dont require too much of the palestinians. If i was the p.m of israel id be more than ready to give them terrirtory (while removing all the jewish settlers from there, of course) and control over eastern jerusalem, and what not just for one single compromise on their side: recognition of the jewish state and a commitment to let it be, without attempting to change it to anything else.
        When the “compromise” includes right of return for palestinians to israel, or any other step which might efficently burry the jewish state – its not compromising. Its simply saying “ok the palestinians will wait another X years required for them to become a majority in israel and kill the jewish state peacefully”. With such “compromise” theres no need for two states – as ive already written. Israel will simply become Palestine. So wheres the compromise here?
        That i wont be thrown into the sea or forced to immigrate but will be allowed to live in palestine under palestinian rule?
        WIth such “compromise” id rather leave the situtation as is.

        As someone who was born more than 30 years ago after the nakba i dont see how a just solution must be such that will ruin my life here or will most probably force me to leave israel. Sorry.

        1. @ y)
          When the Jewish state was established, only 7% of the land belonged to Jews, mostly bought by the Ottomans, i.e. not the legal owners, and since when does private ownership of land give the right to establish a state ?

          So the Palestinians living in al-jaleel and who can prove their land ownership can establish a Palestinian state there ??

          “As someone who was born more than 30 years after the nakba I don’t see how a just solution must be such that it will ruin my life or will most probably force me to leave Israel. Sorry”.

          No, you don’t have to apologize. You just expressed your deep understanding of why the Arab population of Palestine didn’t accept the partition voted by the UN with joy in their hearts. Just change the ’30 years after the nakba’ by 1900 years after the Jewish exile’ and ‘Israel’ by ‘Palestine’.

          1. By writing that only 7% of the land belonged to Jews in 1948, Dear Yassin implies that the 93% belonged to Arabs.
            In fact at that some 8% belonged to Jews, some 22 % to Arabs and the remaining 70% was sate land. It as called Sultan’s land during the Ottoman rule and then King’s land during the British Mandate. After 1948 was it became land owned by the state of Israel.

          2. No, I didn’t imply anything else than what I wrote: that only 7% of the land belonged to Jews prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. Don’t put words into my mouth that I didn’t say, or wrote. That land is not private owned, does not mean that it’s just waiting to be conquered, though this has been a colonial procedure worldwide. The Amerindians, Africans and native populations elsewhere had no proof of their ownership, so it wasn’t theirs !!
            I guess back in your Jewish ‘nation-state’ 3500 years ago, people already had private land ownership with all the necessary proofs or was the Jewish National Fund already operationg ?
            I’ll leave you to your hasbara spinning, it’s not worth waisting my time answering you any longer.

        2. Don’t be disingenuous, y. It doesn’t advance your argument one bit. And no, it did NOT happen in “more than enough places”, it happened in very few places, in fact. And precisely how many places is “more than enough” to justify what Israel has done and continues to do not only to the Palestinians but to the Golani Syrians? 6%? 10%? 25%? Give us a number, please to justify your claim of “more than enough”.

          And I am really sorry you think it will ruin your life to be forced to compromise and allow a partial return of the people on whose stolen land your country exists.

          1. Shirin and Der Yassin
            You are repeating the same arguement over and over again.
            Theres no need to teach me about the nakba or repeat again and again about jews not living in palestine for +- 2000 years.
            You both can write another 100 times how unjustified the creation of israel was, and i do agree to a certain degree, but it doesnt mean i should or want to practicly commit suicide to repair the damage.

            Der yassin, yes i understand very well why the arabs here didnt jump from happiness when the partition plan was accepted by the un, but i do believe there can be a just solution/end of conflict with israel remaining a jewish state.

            Shirin, i dont think it will ruin my life. I know it will. Ive asked and can ask again: where will those hundernds of thousands work? where will they live? will they forget their hatered towards this state and the jews here the minute they become citizens? what will the jews here do if those palestinians become the majority and decide to change the laws to islam based ones? Can u even certanly tell those palestinians wish to live in a democratic state at all?

            This “compromise” is not a small unnoticed change for israel. Its a slow and painfull death for the jewish state, and i honestly think the only reason people insist on right of return for palestinians so much is because they realise such scenario will eventually bring palestinian rule all over israel and palestine (except for people like richard, who for some reason believes we really can create usa #2 here), and this the main reason so many israelis (including me) wont trust palestinians as long as their leaders are not willing to recognize israel is a jewish state.

            put in more simple words – i dont think a peacefull co-existance is possible between 2 groups of people who’ve been taught to hate each other for so long, and unless u wanna see them killing each other (or hope to see one group simply demographicly taking the other with time) u have to realise the only possible solution is 2 states for 2 nations.

          2. Your quasi-hysterical whining about your life being ruined by being forced to make a massive wrong partially right is not impressing me, especially since you ignored my primary point, and not answered the one question I asked you.

            How many places is “more than enough”? Give us a number, a percentage – something so we can understand how much purchased versus stolen land is “more than enough”? You made a very vague statement, now you need to support it with some figures.

          3. where will those hundernds of thousands work? where will they live? will they forget their hatered towards this state and the jews here the minute they become citizens?”

            Where did all the hundreds of thousands of Russians (Jews and many, many non-Jews) work and live who flooded into Israel in the ’80’s and ’90’s? Come to think of it, where did all the hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews who were shipped en masse to Israel in the ’50’s work and live – oh, yeah. The state used them to populate parts of the country where European Jews didn’t want to live, allowed them to do jobs European Jews didn’t want to do, limited their access to education, and gave them tin shacks to live in. Funny how Israel has managed throughout its history to accommodate large influxes of Jews by one means or another, and how the story changes when we’re talking about Palestinians.

            Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the way the new Palestinians citizens will feel about their Jewish fellow citizens might depend a lot on how they are treated as “equal” citizens of Israel? Will the Jews in Israel forget their racism and hatred toward Arabs, and their bigotry and ignorance about Islam and even Christianity?

            what will the jews here do if those palestinians become the majority and decide to change the laws to islam based ones? Can u even certanly tell those palestinians wish to live in a democratic state at all?

            What an interesting juxtaposition, and how revelatory of underlying prejudices.

    2. Quotes are done with html code <-blockquote-> [ignore the hyphens]

      its knda like comparing oranges with apples

      I see. So Soviet Jews are apples & Palestinians are oranges. Since when? Soviet Jews are human beings & Palestinians are human beings. The latter have at least as convincing a claim to the land as the former.

      I’m not going to get into yet another argument about the nature or beliefs of Palestinians. You can natter on all you want about this. You’ve had your say about this in an earlier thread. Needless to say yr views of Palestinians are based on ignorance & so lack any credibility. Don’t repeat yrself & don’t continue w. this argument or thread.

      Where would 400,000 Palestinian returnees live & work? Where did the 1 million Soviet Jews live & work? Israel absorbed them as it has tens of previous immigration waves going back to the 1950s. IT would do the same w. the Palestinians.

      You aren’t really asking “both sides” to compromise. You’re asking the Palestinians to give up their Right of Return in return for nothing. At least nothing remotely acceptable to them. If you were a potential immigrant to Israel & the authorities governing it said you couldn’t return to Israel but you could return to the U.S. & told you this was where the largest Jewish community was located, would you accept this as a legitimate alternative? Of course not. IT would be Zion or bust. It’s the same with that small number of Palestinian refugees who would insist on exercising their rights & legitimately so.

  8. Actually, i have answered ur question (“And precisely how many places is “more than enough” to justify what Israel has done and continues to do not only to the Palestinians but to the Golani Syrians? 6%? 10%? 25%?”)
    here : “You both can write another 100 times how unjustified the creation of israel was, and i do agree to a certain degree, but it doesnt mean i should or want to practicly commit suicide to repair the damage”
    I can even write it in a more obvious way: “the nakba is not justified, just like the aggresive take-over of the israeli setterls behind the green line”. That still doesnt make a land theif out of me. sorry.

    Shirin, as ive already written to you – im not trying to impress u. why should i bother? All im saying is that fixing wrong with another wrong is not equall to right.
    You also didnt answer me, btw, to more than one questoin
    regarding palestinians come back to israel, and ur simplistic solutions of “Palestinians coming back to Israel. Everybody happy. Great democracy” dont impress no one either, especially when u explictly write u dont give a damn how much itll affect the life of the people who live here now, and have no clue what will it take to integrate those returning palestinians in Israel (and if its even possible).

    Eventually, as i said, you can write another 1000 posts on how unjustified the creation of israel was, ill write another 1000 times that i agree, but as of now there are 3 possible solutions (and ive written about them more than once already)
    1 – to keep the situtation as is, and then as long as israel is stronger and supported by usa the palestinians will suffer (and maybe the israelis also will – if another intifada breaks)
    2 – 2 states solution. Yes, not the most just and perfect solution in the world, but such that will alow both nations to develope independtly and wont bring more tension when jews will vote shas and palestinians will vote hamas
    3 – Any solution which ends up with israel no longer being a jewish state. With such soltuion – as much as its unjust towards the palestinians – i (as most of the israelis probably) prefer possibility #1, where i get to suffer less than palestinians.

    As most of the israelis who consider themselves left wingers i dont aim to be Jesus Christ and to suffer for the rest humanity. I merely want to give to palestinians the ability to develope their own state with any government they want, but not at the price of ruinning israel (and same goes about the israeli palestinians – as much as i care the next PM here can be palestinian, as long as he understand this is a jewish state, with laws based at least partially on judaism and with right of return for jews – or for palestinians who accept this state as a jewish one).

    Unfortunatly, palestinian leaders and people like urself seem to not understand that most of the israelis prefer to keep things the way they are now, and to ensure theres a jewish state this way than to choose solution #3. We rather live in a half apartheid israel than see this placesturning into egypt or jordan.

    1. No, you have NOT answered my question. You haven’t even made a very good pretense of dancing around it. Instead you have avoided it altogether by changing the subject. You very clearly stated that “more than enough places” in Israel were purchased from Palestinians. I want to know what you consider “more than enough”? Come on, stop avoiding and back up your statement. What percentage of land needs to be purchased versus stolen to be “more than enough” in your reckoning? Or are you avoiding it because you have realized what an utterly stupid, and completely unsupportable statement it was?

      And please calm yourself. Your increasing hysteria over your ruined life/suicide is not helping you, nor is it good for your blood pressure.

      Also, please stop attributing to me statements, and beliefs I have never expressed. I have never once suggested anything remotely like the simplistic scenario you ascribed to me. I will say, though, that if Palestinians were allowed their right of return it would not be the returning Palestinians who would cause the most drama.

      And by the way, I and Palestinian leaders understand very well that most Israelis are intent upon making sure Israel remains a Jewish state. How do the nicer ones put it, “preserve the Jewish character of the state”? Do you think we are not aware of the ugly, racist references to Israel’s Palestinian citizens as a “demographic time bomb” (and that’s from the nice, liberal, politically correct Israeli Jews; what you hear from the others is even uglier and more blatantly racist)?

      And how very progressive of you to accept a Palestinian President as long as he will acknowledge and honour his status by definition as a second-class citizen.

      1. Shirin, the only person whos not calm here is u.
        U dont see me calling u stupid, or acting so aggresively towards other users, do you?

        Do you want me to write to you for the thrid time that even if 100% of the land is stolen it doesnt matter NOW – 3 generations later?
        Wow, so the expression “more than enough” was not so well chosen by me. That really makes a land theif out of me, right? Or u didnt call me land theif either and im again “attributing statements you haver never expressed”.
        And yes, you never claimed return of palestinians to israel will be easy. You simply ignored the subject – just like others here had done before, and why should u answer me? after all, its way easier to remind us again how unjustified the creation of israel was 60 years back (and do it again and again, even when i write agree with u), and ignore questions which u simply cant answer without inventing some utopic answers, or openly saying u actually dont care how problematic return of palestinians will be – because itll eventually might lead to what u wish to see : palestinian rule of all israel.

        “. I will say, though, that if Palestinians were allowed their right of return it would not be the returning Palestinians who would cause the most drama. ”
        Sure, because all the people who live in shoaafat or in camps in lebanon carry a M.Sc in comp science, speak fluent hebrew and have 250,000$ to buy an average appartment in israel. Of course noone of them hates jews or israel, and they are simply looking forward for their meeting with their best friends – israeli jews.
        Of course they wont start hating jews even more when theyll de-facto become the poorest citizens of israel. And of course, jews here will be very eager to embrace them and share neighbourhoods with them. Of course they all also come from societies with great democratic traditions, and will improve the human rights situation alot.

        “And by the way, I and Palestinian leaders understand very well that most Israelis are intent upon making sure Israel remains a Jewish state. How do the nicer ones put it, “preserve the Jewish character of the state”? Do you think we are not aware of the ugly, racist references to Israel’s Palestinian citizens as a “demographic time bomb” (and that’s from the nice, liberal, politically correct Israeli Jews; what you hear from the others is even uglier and more blatantly racist)?”
        Theres a difference between what i said and what u say.
        Theres a difference between saying “We recornigze the jews have the right for their own state just like palestinians do, and we will not attempt to change its nature” and saying “OMG Jews are so racists. they want their own state, we will never recognize it AND we will create a palestinian state where there will never be a jewish leader and of course this is not racist at all”.
        You say the later, and this is not what i or other israeli jews wish to hear from Palestinian leaders.
        And please, spare from me the pathetic speeches about racism. Do u think i didnt see ur rather provoking remark on “New york jews”? Besides, we’ve been enemies with the palestinians for almost 100 years now – even if its not their fault. Are u surprised israelis see them as a demographic time bomb? What do u think would happen if they become a majority here? They’d starting giving away candies hugs and kisses to all the jewish kids? Can u guarrante they wont pass anti jewish laws? that there wont be a mosque under my house awaking me every morning – just like it happens to my friends up north, who live close to palestinian villages? Do u thin itll make the palestinians more eager to accept jewish population in their cities? Do you think we will suddenly see a mixed neighbour in um al fahem? Of course u dont have answers to any of this questions, but in the name of ur perfect Justice (which, of course should only be applied to Israel) ur more than ready to sacrifice anyone who lives here, instead of just realising a 2 states solution with no sudden death to israel can actually WORK and be just enough for all.

        “And how very progressive of you to accept a Palestinian President as long as he will acknowledge and honour his status by definition as a second-class citizen.”
        Im sorry, but this is literaly bullshit.
        With this logic any citizen in the usa who aknowledges usa has a certain law system and it cant be turned into a communist state/sharia state/ judaistic medinat halaha should be considered a second class citizen as well.
        What exactly would make an Palestinian Prime Minister second class citizens? The lack of ability to change israels anthem from hatikva to some Darwish Song?

        To sum it up, the only hysterical person here is you, with ur over pathetic speeches, and constant attempts to make everybody look stupid. I believe its better to have a part of something than to lose it all. You apparently believe its better to try and reaquire the whole thing again Luckily for me ur opnion currently matters only on this site.

        1. Please stop distorting what I say, y. I never called you stupid. I called your statement stupid. I do not think you are stupid at all, but you sure did say something stupid in that case. I also do not consider myself stupid, and yet from time to time I have made a stupid comment, and admitted to it.

          1. So yes, the expression ive chosen was stupid. I actually used it only because u wrote this ” love it when the thief self-righteously insists that the victim must compromise with him on the return of the stolen property”, and as i already said – i dont see myself as a theif in anyway.

          2. i dont see myself as a theif in anyway.

            I was not referring to you personally, y, and you do not impress me as a thief at all. I believe you are trying to grapple with the moral dilemmas that should be in the awareness of all Israelis. One of those dilemmas is that you are all benefiting from a massive theft that not only took place in 1948, but has been ongoing for more than six decades. Even if the land you live on is one of those “more than enough places” that was purchased from a seller who sold it voluntarily with no coercion or deception involved, you are still enjoying the fruits not only of the theft of land, but the theft of lives, livelihoods, history, and the attempted theft of identity.

        2. even if 100% of the land is stolen it doesnt matter NOW – 3 generations later

          What a revealing comment! To YOU it doesn’t matter because you are the one benefiting from the theft of the land, but believe me it DOES matter, and it will continue to matter. Ben Gurion infamously said of the Palestinians that “the old will die, and the young will forget”. That the old will die is inevitable, but the young have not forgotten, and will not forget. Such grievous injustices are not forgotten, but remain in the collective memory until they are resolved. Jews, of all people, should understand that.

          Wow, so the expression “more than enough” was not so well chosen by me. That really makes a land theif out of me, right?

          Wrong. It does not make you personally a land thief. It does make you someone who made a very, very foolish statement that you are obligated to either support or retract. You could earn respect by doing either one. Instead you insist upon perpetuating the foolishness at nauseum.

          I’m am sorry, I just am not in a mood right now to respond to the rest of your hysterical rantings. I still have an optimistic feeling that you are someone who is sincerely trying to grapple with the conundrum of being an Israeli who at some level appreciates the moral and ethical issues, but is having difficulty reconciling them with the way you want things to be. You come across as very young, and that too makes me optimistic that you will over time develop more sophistication, and therefore begin to develop a better level of understanding.

          I do, however, have to address this:

          With this logic any citizen in the usa who aknowledges usa has a certain law system and it cant be turned into a communist state/sharia state/ judaistic medinat halaha should be considered a second class citizen as well.

          Very inept analogy indeed. In fact, you haven’t produced a single logically valid argument that I can think of. A valid analogy would be a Jewish citizen of the USA who was forced to acknowledge that the USA is a Christian state established by and for Christians. This Jew would be required to salute a flag that depicted Jesus on the Cross, sing a national anthem about the longings of the Christian heart to meet Jesus, and accept that every one of his national symbols is a Christian symbol. This Jewish citizen of the USA would also have to accept that he would not be allowed to buy a house in a Christian community, would have to live in an area that received only a small percentage of government services because it was a non-Christian community, would have to send his children to lower-tier schools because he was not a Christian, and would receive far different treatment than Christians did whenever he tried to travel within the country or to or from international destinations.

          I think their’s hope or you , Y. You might just be able to cut through your indoctrination and look for he truth. I wish you the best when you get to that ed

      2. And im terribly sorry for the double response, but how exactly did i “changed the subject”? From someone who treats all the people who dont disagree with her as idiots and who openly writes it id expect to understand what ive beeen writing here – even if my english is far from being perfect.
        u can read up to the beginning of the ocnversatoin and u will see i made one single claim: if theres a chance to any peace solution in here – its two states for two nations.

        1. Here is how what you did constitutes changing the subject:

          You made the statement that “more than enough places” were purchased from Palestinians. I specifically asked you to quantify “more than enough”, and even provided examples of the type of answer I was looking for (e.g. 6%, 10%, 25%). You responded by going on about how the Nakba was bad, but you could not be expected to commit suicide because of that. That is called dodging the question by changing the subject.

        2. @ y)
          If you think the only chance for a peaceful solution is the Two State-solution, you should put all your energy into convincing your fellow Israeli countrymen.

          A majority of the Palestinians living in the OT are still in favor of a Two State solution, but the support for a One State solution is progressing (between 25 and 35% according to the various polls). Personnally, I’ve never been in favor of the Two State solution but back in 1993 I was ready to give it a chance, but when you realize that Israel did not freeze the settlement constructions in the West Bank during and after Camp David but, on the contrary speeded it up, most observers come to the conclusion that Israel, Likud and HaAvoda alike, never really wanted a Two State solution on the 67-borders.

          You might be in favour of a Two State solution, but in the meantime the One State is being created on the ground. You should study the history of South Africa – there’a a lot in common – and I’m convinced that’s the only solution in the long run: One secular, democratic state from Jordan to the Mediterrannean, fully integrated into the Middle East. And as far as I’m concerned: if the Israeli Jews don’t want to share the land with the Arabs, they are free to leave again. One million White South Africans have left South Africa since the end of Apartheid. Nobody obliged them, apparently their love for the country was not big enough to share it with the Africans, the loss of the economical advantages during Apartheid, or pure racism made them leave.
          The new South African Constitution is considered one of the most ‘liberal’ in the world, minority rights are protected, and the South African ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ commissions have been copied in various places around the world, and would also be a ‘must’ for a future peaceful Jewish-Arab coexistence.

  9. Ill make this my last respond on this thread, as everything that could have been said was already said, and i dont see how ill get to convince you, or u get to convince me, however i still want to relate to some points from all of ur responses

    You aren’t really asking “both sides” to compromise. You’re asking the Palestinians to give up their Right of Return in return for nothing. At least nothing remotely acceptable to them. If you were a potential immigrant to Israel & the authorities governing it said you couldn’t return to Israel but you could return to the U.S. & told you this was where the largest Jewish community was located, would you accept this as a legitimate alternative? Of course not. IT would be Zion or bust. It’s the same with that small number of Palestinian refugees who would insist on exercising their rights & legitimately so.

    Richard i AM asking the both sides to compromise. Since nor u or i know how many palestinians would have chosen to come back to israel if they could – my point about slow but sure transfering of israel into a de-facto palestine stands still. With such scenario the palestinians dont compromise on anything, because they simply have to wait few more years before they become a majority here and do whatever they want. Ive already written this, yes, and i still dont see how can such a scenario be ignored, and how can u dont see it means certain death to israel as we know it. You might say u dont mind if that happens, but its not really compromising on the palestinian side (unless waiting few more years to gain all palestine = compromising in ur dictionary, and then i wish i knew what “not compromising” was). May i also remind you palestinians are wearker military wise, they are not that eagerly supported by USA or EU, and about 0% of the jews will ever be ready to recognize palestinians right of return. if i was them id realise what ive already told to shirin – its better to get a part of something, that to hope to get the whle thing and get nothing – even if theoreticly u deserve the whole thing.

    p.s Richard, for some reason u often assume people who live in israel dont know anything about palestinians. People here are more mixed than u think.

    Where did all the hundreds of thousands of Russians (Jews and many, many non-Jews) work and live who flooded into Israel in the ’80′s and ’90′s? Come to think of it, where did all the hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews who were shipped en masse to Israel in the ’50′s work and live

    Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the way the new Palestinians citizens will feel about their Jewish fellow citizens might depend a lot on how they are treated as “equal” citizens of Israel? Will the Jews in Israel forget their racism and hatred toward Arabs, and their bigotry and ignorance about Islam and even Christianity?

    Shirin, theres a difference between supposedly jews coming to israel as olim, and few thousands of palestinians who will be forced on israel. The hatred is also common (again, even if its not the palestinians fault – i still doubt an average person in refugee camp has any positive feelings about jews or israel at all).
    You write about “racism”. I dont see myself as a racist. I dont believe jews are in anyway superior to palestinians (or muslims or anyone else), not to mention jews really are not a nation (as u urself mentioned somewhere here), and the different groups here sometimes share more with the lands of their origin than with other jews. I recognize the right of the palestinians to live their lifes in anyway they wish, and to choose any government they wish, btu as ive already written – it doesnt mean im willing to see a mosque being constructed under my house. Of course, im also not exactly happy either when i read about jewish insane settlers buidling yet another religious jewish settlement in the heart of east jerusalem , or jaffo or in any other place where most of the population is muslim. I dont see how these situations can be avoided though, in a bi national israel, and seeing how much all the bi-national cities in israel fail – i dont see how it can be changed (not because its good, or because im happy with it – but simply because i dont believe the hate will just disappear – even if theres a peace treaty signed).
    I dont support the states discrimination of palestinians, on about 100% of the issues, but still – i dont tnink singing “hatikva” automaticly makes anyone second class citizen (if the “discrimnation” ends there, of curse) – just like muslims in GB dont become second class citizens because the anthem is about saving the queen.

    What an interesting juxtaposition, and how revelatory of underlying prejudices.</blockquote
    Again, ill have to remind that even on this forum, where people are mostly liberal and usually wish to live in peace one with another there are users who claim its the palestinians right to chose whether they want democracy or not. Also, judging by the countries that neighbour us i dont see a good reason for optimism on that issue.

    You might be in favour of a Two State solution, but in the meantime the One State is being created on the ground. You should study the history of South Africa – there’a a lot in common – and I’m convinced that’s the only solution in the long run: One secular, democratic state from Jordan to the Mediterrannean, fully integrated into the Middle East

    Der yassin, unfortunatly u r right, and i do see the one state being slowly but surely created, because of idiotism of our leaders. It doesnt however mean it is the right solution. You aslo forget most of the jews dont want to live in a secular state (and i still do believe its true about palestiians as well)

    To sum up everything i said so far, i believe that forcing jews and palestinians to share a country will lead only to more troubles and hateretd. itll take generations (if its possible at all) before the past will be forgotten. I do believe we can live in peace with the palestinians, side by side, as neighbours from two different countries, but theres a difference between sharing a country, and living in a cold peace with 2 different states. The solution which includes right of return for the palestinians is obviously the more just solution, and i have no doubt about that, but i also have no doubt that at the long run itll only cause more trouble. Unfortuantly no one here nor anywhere else has answers to most questions ive raised, and people usually prefer to avoid answering them by claiming my remarks are “racist” or full of paranoia or anything else.
    I dont think u can even answer simple questions such as “what will be the non working day in a secular israel? saturday, friday or sunday?” and this the most simple question that comes to my mind right now.
    Anyway, as ive already said – i said everything i had to say on that subject, and this argument has already been handled on another thread (sorry for going on with it here also, richard, but i coldnt resist answering), so ill stop/quit here.
    Good week to all of you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link