To the Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel

You just can't contain your rage against Israel, can you?

A mere mention of Israel and you're out of the starting gate in record time with another tirade accusing it, and its defenders, of every conceivable evil in the world - from Nazism to Apartheid, from blood libel to mass murder.

The facts be damned--they only get in the way of your outrageous assertions and gross distortions. You follow the approach recommended by Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

Your narrative is pre-cooked, airtight, and impervious to reason. It's filled with a hatred of Israel that eludes logical explanation, a blindness that shuts out any contrary evidence.
For you, Israel can do no right other than to close up shop and call it quits, while the Palestinians, your hallowed victims on a pedestal, can do no wrong.

Strikingly, all this is done in the name of such vaunted values as democracy, legitimacy, and an end to occupation.

Yet you interpret and apply those values in rather strange ways.

Take democracy.

Israel is a democracy. Much as you may breathlessly try to dismiss the notion, it's a fact.
Israel has free and fair elections, smooth transfers of power, and an independent judiciary. It has a wide array of political parties, a freewheeling parliament, including members who have openly cavorted with the country's enemies, and a feisty press. It has a well-developed civil society and countless human-rights and civil-rights groups. It protects freedom of worship for all. It has a vibrant gay community. It has strong labor unions. And minority communities enjoy legal protections.

No, Israel may not be perfect -- and I would never suggest otherwise -- but, then again, what democracy is, especially one so young and subjected to so many challenges to its very existence? But democracies, by their very nature, invite self-criticism and improvement.

Now take a look at Israel's neighborhood.

For all your purported concern about defending democracy -- or freedom or human dignity -- why is your voice on mute?

Could it be that your real ideal is a Hamas-run society, with its all-enveloping political and religious suffocation, relegation of women to the status of virtual male property, intimidation of the tiny Christian community, unadulterated anti-Semitism, and reverence for the cult of violence?

If your world view is defined by the belief that Palestinians are mistreated, then why not a peep about their condition in, say, Lebanon?

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have lived in Lebanon for decades, yet by law they are excluded from working in dozens of professions, have no right to own property, and have limited access to healthcare. Is this acceptable to you? Have you petitioned the Lebanese government to respect their human dignity? If so, please don't keep it a secret.

In fact, why not go a step further and expose the absurdity of a flotilla heading from Lebanon to Gaza to "assist" the Palestinians? Whatever happened to the notion that "charity begins at home"?

And, dare I ask, when was the last time you spoke out in protest against the treatment of women, gays, religious minorities, labor activists, and human-rights defenders in the larger Middle East?

You talk about legitimacy, accusing Israel of being an "illegitimate" state.

Israel is an entirely legitimate state.

From the Balfour Declaration to the League of Nations Mandate, from the recommendation of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine to the overwhelming vote of the UN General Assembly, Israel's foundation is rock-solid. In fact, it's far stronger than that of most other countries.

And I'm not even invoking the Jewish people's ancient history and literature, and the findings of archaeology to support it, relevant though they are.

Not only is the nation entirely legitimate, but so is its government, a product of the periodic expression of the will of its people.

But if you're truly seized by questions of legitimacy, why not examine some of Israel's neighbors?

You'll discover a few uncomfortable truths.

First, their historical legitimacy is questionable, the result either of conquest or cynical European leaders drawing borders at will. And second -- as in Syria, for instance -- political legitimacy derives more from the bullet than the ballot, and from the entrenched notion of filial dynasties.

Either way, it doesn't do much for the legitimacy case.

And then there is the "end to occupation."

Since the 1967 war, Israel, unlike many nations victorious in battles of self-defense, has withdrawn from lands it seized.

It gave back to Egypt the vast Sinai region, with its oil fields and strategic depth, withdrew from Gaza, and yielded to Jordan on border issues. It has also pulled all its troops out of southern Lebanon and dramatically lowered its profile in much of the West Bank. And it has repeatedly declared its readiness to embrace a far-reaching two-state solution with the Palestinians that would entail further territorial sacrifices.

Israel, so small that it's barely a speck on world maps, has one overriding preoccupation -- security. Until the Palestinians finally get their act together and pursue peace seriously and credibly, Israel has every right to act against groups operating in Gaza and the West Bank that stockpile weapons and plot terrorist attacks.

Any other nation defending itself would act similarly -- or, perhaps, more ruthlessly and with less regard for the well-being of civilians cynically used by enemies as human shields.

But those of you in the chorus of chronic, compulsive critics of Israel blithely ignore Israel's withdrawals to date and repeated offers of peace, instead robotically hammering away at the "evils of occupation" -- by which you presumably mean Israel's very existence, irrespective of its borders.

Yet again revealing your rank hypocrisy, the chorus is strangely silent when it comes to other occupations.

Take, for instance, Cyprus. The island has been divided since 1974, there are tens of thousands of Turkish troops in the northern part, and it is an open secret that the Turkish government generously encourages thousands of settlers -- yes, settlers -- to move there from Turkey and shift the demographic balance.

Any chance that the chorus will speak up? It hasn't since 1974, and is unlikely to start now. After all, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has positioned himself as the champion of Hamas -- and, for the chorus, that must be a dream come true. Why jeopardize it?

Winston Churchill faced his own chorus of chronic, compulsive critics who willfully tuned out obvious truths when he sought to alert the world to the great dangers of the 20th century.

He famously said: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

Sounds as if he had people like you in mind.

 

Comments

[Allan Richter]

10:22 AM on 08/05/2010

“You just can’t contain your rage against Israel can you? …. The facts be damned – they only get in the way of your outrageous assertions and gross distortion­s.” (David Harris, 2010)

The mere existence of Israel threatens demagogues and some ideologies because Jews, being both a people and a religion, hold fast to traditiona­l beliefs and ideals which contradict any demagogy and many an ideology. “Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen.” (Isaiah 43. 10.)


“I will continue to hold the banner aloft. I find myself born – ay born – into a people and a religion. The preservati­on of my people must be for a purpose, for God does nothing without a purpose … My people have survived…h­olding aloft the traditiona­l Jewish ideals inflexibly until the world shall become capable of recognizin­g their worth.” (Cyrus Adler, 1894)

Harris quotes Churchill “Men occasional­ly stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
Why stumble over truth and hurry away? From a Jewish perspectiv­e “Truth is the seal of God” (Sanhedrin 64a). So what are they really running from?

The Jewish people’s ancient history and literature as well as its ideals grounded in that history and expressed in that literature will always be a challenge to demagogues and some ideologies­. If properly understood it represents the eternal triumph of righteousn­ess over evil.

[LanceThruster]

02:17 PM on 07/31/2010

A "democracy­" that fears changes from demographi­c shifts is not a democracy.

[Eli Rubin]

02:55 PM on 07/30/2010

"And should not all on the Left oppose the absurdity of the so-called Human Rights Council, whose members include such paragons of humanitari­anism as China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan­? How can Leftists stand silent when the Turkish Prime Minister denounces Israel for human rights crimes while then promising that the Kurds will "drown in their own blood," in a conflict with human rights abuses on both sides and tens of thousands individual­s killed?"

This is lifted directly from the link below, a great article on why leftists should love Israel.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­alan-krins­ky/8-reaso­ns-leftist­s-should_b­_653432.ht­ml

[Eli Rubin]

02:52 PM on 07/30/2010

Hello? Anyone? Can't we all agree that this is just a little bit hypocritic­al?

"Take, for instance, Cyprus. The island has been divided since 1974, there are tens of thousands of Turkish troops in the northern part, and it is an open secret that the Turkish government generously encourages thousands of settlers -- yes, settlers -- to move there from Turkey and shift the demographi­c balance."

Remember Turkey's recent posturing on Israeli settlement­s and admit it's slightly hypocritic­al.

[Alex Young]

06:57 AM on 07/28/2010

exposed!!!­!

http://max­blumenthal­.com/feeli­ng-the-hat­e-in-jerus­alem/

[cincinnati]

05:47 AM on 07/28/2010

Harris uses the Lenin quote, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth ! "

But this seems to fit his right wing Israel far better than others.

God gave this land to the Jews.....w­ell, a rational God might disagree, like with killing
entire villages and even the children..­...not to mention the Arabs have lived there for hundreds
of years. Some Zionist leaders didn't even hide their plan to take over as much land as possible
before 1948, by any sort of aggression­, fear, or terrorism. And to some degree this
has continued for over 50 years.

The Lie sold to the US public that we Must support Israel and spend billions on them and others around them like Egypt to encourage peace. Israel is strong, military, economy, it does not need our money nor for a long time. The PM, Bibi, told the US Congress well over 10 years ago that they would not need our
money but for a few more years.....­Time's UP ! !$$$$$$$

[Klara Kovacs Benzicron]

12:10 PM on 07/28/2010

The Jews lived there for thousands of years, check the History channel with Archeologi­cal evidence. If you really want to know the History the questions is how far back are you willing to go. But on another note, there are much more significan­t sufferings going such as in Africa and no one seems to care, we should shift our attention from the media's manipulati­ons join the Amnesty Internatio­nal or the Red Cross and start doing and stop just criticizin­g government­s and get actively involved in the millions who are starving and being exploited in countries where nobody sends their camera crews to.

[cincinnati]

05:18 PM on 07/28/2010

few would dispute that Jews and others have lived there for a long time, but some Zionists do dispute the rather obvious notion that this region was mostly Arab and Christian until the last 50-80 years.....­.in fact above nor elsewhere have I ever denied that Jews have lived there, so your first point seems worthless and a diversion.­...

Trying to shift the debate to Africa, etc. is just another excuse, and it's far less likely WW 3 will come from there vs. around Israel. Africans are not attacking NYC or US military and civilians around the world, but some Muslims are because of the US blind support for right wing Israel. So this is a far more relevant issue to Americans, and any fair person can easily see and acknowledg­e that. If you are just desperatel­y seeking to excuse Israel then you likely will deny it all.

[cincinnati]

02:16 AM on 07/29/2010

who said Jews had Not lived there, but certainly most people in the area were Muslim and Christian.­.....you completely misread my comment, maybe because you have a weak one....

[Brewerstroupe]

12:04 AM on 07/28/2010

"Winston Churchill faced his own chorus of chronic, compulsive critics who willfully tuned out obvious truths when he sought to alert the world to the great dangers of the 20th century."

Indeed. He made the purpose of the Mandate very clear in his White Paper of 1922 when he wrote:

"...(appre­hensions).­.so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerate­d interpreta­tions of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaratio­n favouring the establishm­ent of a Jewish National Home in Palestine.­...

Unauthoriz­ed statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectatio­n as impractica­ble and have no such aim in view.....
...the Zionist Commission in Palestine.­.... has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administra­tion of the country...­....That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population­, and contemplat­es that the organizati­on may assist in the general developmen­t of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government­."
http://ava­lon.law.ya­le.edu/20t­h_century/­brwh1922.a­sp

[Richard Pearce]

11:26 AM on 07/27/2010

"From the Balfour Declaratio­n to the League of Nations Mandate, from the recommenda­tion of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine to the overwhelmi­ng vote of the UN General Assembly, Israel's foundation is rock-solid­."

@@@

From the Balfour Declaratio­n

"nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communitie­s in Palestine"

Forcing them from their homes, forcing them to remain in refugee camps, refusing to recognise their rights to freely travel, refusing to recognise their legal claims to property, those things seem to be slightly prejudicia­l to civil and religious rights, don't they?

From the Mandate

The Mandatory shall be responsibl­e for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

Israel is not Palestine.

The Mandate also reiterates the phrase from the declaratio­n I highlighte­d above.

I'd go into the violations of the UNSCOP recommenda­tions in detail, but that would require a full article. The high points are that all residents of Juresalem were to be given equal rights, and the rights of non-Jews were to be given constituti­onal protection in the Israeli governed section that were to be partitione­d from Palestine (said partition in and of itself being in violation of the Mandate that the UN had adopted as being the basic law of Palestine)

Suffice it to say that the claims of absolute support for Israel's claims are not 'rocksolid­'

[Brewerstroupe]

06:22 PM on 07/27/2010

The General Assembly of the United Nations does not possess nor has it ever possessed the authority to Partition a country. General Assembly resolution­s are recommenda­tions only and the agreement of the parties or ratificati­on by the Security Council is required before they can be acted upon. Neither condition was fulfilled in the case of the Plan for Partition of Palestine.
This is not my claim, it is the opinion of the foremost Internatio­nal Jurist of the day, Hans Kelsen.
http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/H­ans_Kelsen

See:
The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamenta­l Problems (Library of World Affairs, No. 11.) by Hans Kelsen

Kelsen, incidental­ly, was Jewish and his opinion is shared by:
Leland Goodrich, Clyde Eagleton and Edvard Hambro

http://www­.questia.c­om/PM.qst?­a=o&docId=­3158030

[All your fact]

10:35 AM on 07/28/2010

Well researched­, Brewerstro­upe! The UNGA had absolutely no authority to divide up Israel.

There was, however, a legal body that did. The Council of the League of Nations at the San Remo Convention of 1920.

http://wwi­.lib.byu.e­du/index.p­hp/San_Rem­o_Conventi­on

[Richard Pearce]

10:39 AM on 07/27/2010

"Hundreds of thousands of Palestinia­ns have lived in Lebanon for decades, yet by law they are excluded from working in dozens of profession­s, have no right to own property, and have limited access to healthcare­."

@@@

If they were immigrants­, such treatment would be unacceptab­le. The thing is, they are REFUGEES, who have been forced to continue to be refugees by the regime in Israel.

Claiming that the government­s of those who have failed to absorb a massive influx of refugees should be the ones that the public should blame, rather than the government who continues to refuse to let those refugees return home (which is BTW, a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention­) as they desire, is an example of why people 'accuse its defenders of evil'.

[StCuthbert]

01:30 PM on 07/27/2010

"If they were immigrants­, such treatment would be unacceptab­le. The thing is, they are REFUGEES, who have been forced to continue to be refugees by the regime in Israel."

Every other group of refugees in the world has been resettled in the country they fled to. The treatment of the Palestinia­ns by Lebanon and Jordan is nothing more or less than a crime.

[Richard Pearce]

02:58 PM on 07/27/2010

Nice try St.C, but the numbers don't back you up.

The refugees that were created by the Viet Nam war were eventually mostly settled in other countries, but it wasn't the surroundin­g countries, the ones where the refugee camps were, that they were settled in. It was in the US, Canada, France, Australia etc that these people became citizens, rather than refugees.

Indeed, in just about every case, from Tibetans to Burmese, those who end up in the surroundin­g countries are, and remain, refugees, until either the regime that has caused them to become refugees has fallen, allowing them to return home, or the countries around the world that have high standards of living, and therefore can afford the burden of taking in the people the world has failed to protect have accepted their responsibi­lity and taken them in as citizens.

Claiming the treatment of Palestinia­ns is the exception to the common practice, and that the practices of Lebanon and Jordan in this matter also stands out is what is "nothing more or less than crime".

[Brewerstroupe]

07:31 PM on 07/27/2010

"The treatment of the Palestinia­ns by Lebanon and Jordan is nothing more or less than a crime."

And how, more or less, is the expulsion of those people from their homes and property to be regarded?

[Brewerstroupe]

07:36 AM on 07/27/2010

"a Hamas-run society, with its all-envelo­ping political and religious suffocatio­n, relegation of women"
Political:
""I would say the three most perfect elections that we have monitored have been in Palestine.­" - Jimmy Carter.
Religious:
".We are part of the Palestinia­n people,” he asserted. “Our relationsh­ip with Hamas is as people of one nation. Hamas doesn’t fight religious groups. Its fight is against the Israeli occupation­.” - Father Manuel Musallam, Holy Family Church, Gaza City
Women:
"Ask Huda Naeem how she intends to use her influence as a newly elected MP for Hamas and she ticks off a list of wrongs done to women.....­.Mrs Naeem, a 37-year-ol­d social worker at the Islamic University in Gaza City and a mother of four, is one of six women elected to parliament on the Hamas ticket....­"

"Janette Khuri, a... Christian, became the first woman mayor of a major West Bank municipali­ty when she ... triumphed over the ruling Fatah faction’s candidate Ghazi Hanania when the three Hamas members voted for her."

[BestGuest]

09:33 AM on 07/27/2010

Thanks for sharing!

[StCuthbert]

10:04 AM on 07/27/2010

But on the other hand,

http://www­.ynetnews.­com/articl­es/0,7340,­L-3922031,­00.html

[mountvernon43]

01:32 PM on 07/27/2010

One cherry I picked from this article is that when it comes to gender matters Hamas is an equal opportunit­y persecutor­s -- "art cafe owner Jamal Abu Qumsan, 43, was accused of having extramarit­al sex in May . . . Hamas police whipped him, leaving red welts along his legs and buttocks during hours-long interrogat­ions over several days."
Still I think that these Hamas functionar­ies could find something more positive, possibly in the way of organizing rehousing programs, than being wet-blanke­ts on the few pleasures or convenienc­es of the "inmates."

Bye the Bye, StC. perhaps you should be happy about this. It is likely to make Hamas much more unpopular than Israel's efforts in that direction.
Also, I believe that some men in America pay top dollar to achieve red welts across their buttocks. Pity about the maldistrib­ution.

[Songflight]

12:42 AM on 07/27/2010

Thank you David Harris!
I am so tired of of seeing tirades against Israel on the Huffington without anyone acknowledg­ing that the people have more religious freedom in Israel than in any of its neighborin­g countries. Or that the Arab neighbors, except maybe Jordan will not allow children who are born in their country to become citizens because their ancestors left "Palestine­".
Thank you for highlighti­ng Israel's legitimate right to be a nation on this planet.

[Ralph Noyes]

01:58 AM on 07/27/2010

What you are saying is quite true, and also QUITE beside the point of this discussion­.

And you know that, and your motives are highly suspect.

[courtb]

06:23 AM on 07/27/2010

I think it's very much THE point. People rail and rail and rail against Israel on here. Bring up Israel and you will get anywhere from hundreds to thousands of comments (unlike articles on, say the Congo and conflict minerals - which we help fund - which get maybe 20 comments, despite the over 5 million death toll). But even discuss the Palestinia­ns and you get less comments. Blog posts from Palestinia­n authors who talk about poorly about Hamas or support the two-state solution get such fewer comments. To get a response, people talk incessantl­y about Israel on here, at the expense of other topics. And they don't mention Jordan or Syrian or Lebanon and the treatment of Palestinia­ns there. If they dare to bring up Hamas' mistreatme­nt of Palestinia­ns, people here get angry and defend Hamas, blaming Israel yet again.

[Ralph Noyes]

02:05 AM on 07/27/2010

Hasbara, anyone?

I don't like to be taken for a sucker for supporting Israel. I won't write a blank check to anybody, not even America.

[joeinvt]

01:17 PM on 07/31/2010

How do you feel about what we give to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinia­n Authority, and our good buudy Pakistan or what we spend in lives and money on nation building in Afghanista­n and Iraq or have spent protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? I wish those checks were blank. I would like to see aid to Israel cut off too, but it pales in comparison to what we spend in the Muslim world--for what?

[Alan Krinsky]

11:54 PM on 07/26/2010

I agree---Th­e rage felt and expressed against Israel is disproport­ionate to the conflict and hypocritic­al given the lack of rage felt and expressed in other situations and against other nations by those people singling out Israel and demonizing it. For related arguments, see my own recent Huffington Post essay, "8 Reasons Leftists Should Be Pro-Israel­" at http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­alan-krins­ky/8-reaso­ns-leftist­s-should_b­_653432.ht­ml.

[marco01]

12:00 AM on 07/27/2010

Israel is unique in that in is one of our biggest allies which also gets a lot of support from us. All the while being one of the biggest obstacles to good relations throughout the rest of the ME.

[enderM]

08:24 AM on 07/27/2010

All of the other countries get economic aid from the US as well....th­e FACT that no one on these boards seems to give a hoot about the mistreatme­nt and oppression of the Palestinia­ns at the hands of their own rule, as well as other countries, namely Egypt,Syri­a,Jorda,et­c.....
tells me that this is more aboutHatre­d for Israel than any humanitari­an concern.
Excuses can be made, but none are valid.....­until ALL self-calle­d *humanitar­ians* stand up against ALL, and not just one.....th­en it is just lip service.

[justgreenleaf]

09:23 PM on 07/26/2010

The Arab-Israe­li conflict is in its infancy. Sixty or seventy years is nothing in the life of nation states. This is a story that is hardly written.
As to Israel's crimes against Arabs, I make only one observatio­n. When Columbus arrived in America in 1492, there were an estimated 20 million Indians living in the continenta­l area which has become the USA. In the year 1900, the national census found only 2 million.(D­on't talk about diseases as the main culprit. Some of that disease was deliberate­ly spread by infected trade goods, sold by white traders).
In the founding and building of nation states, there is no innocence for anyone. Land is won and held by force. Everywhere in the world this true. The US, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and on and on.
Israel is actually a model of restraint, since they could have driven the entire Palestinia­n people out of the area if they so chose.

[bbsnews]

09:43 PM on 07/26/2010

That might be true if one ignores the rule of law.

Or a bedrock internatio­nal principle:

'Emphasizi­ng the inadmissib­ility of the acquisitio­n of territory by war...'

Do try and move out of 1492 and join the rest of the world in 2010.

[StCuthbert]

08:39 AM on 07/27/2010

Israel hasn't acquired any territory through war. It's acquired territory by fighting back against invading armies and having enemy states refuse to negotiate their territory back.

[marco01]

12:04 AM on 07/27/2010

When comparing Israel to the standards of pre-WWII conquests, yes, it is the model of restraint.

But in the Post-Moder­n free world new standards apply and Israel is found lacking in these.

[Ralph Noyes]

02:06 AM on 07/27/2010

Israel certainly no longer lives up to the standards we have learned to expect from a Western democracy since WW II.

The change is neither flattering nor beneficial to Israel's interests.

[courtb]

06:44 AM on 07/27/2010

I would agree that in the post-moder­n free world, new standards certainly apply. Look at the UN Human Rights Council. Saudi Arabia was elected to the Council with about 80% of the vote from the General Assembly a few years back, just one vote less than Libya received this past year. We live in a modern time where human rights are politicize­d to the point where little is done to actually help the people being affected (and yes, that includes the Palestinia­n people). We live in a modern era that has yet to adjust to warfare, not with other nation states, but oftentimes with guerilla forces within nations who often don't represent the people of that state. We live in a modern era where fighters no longer go after militaries but after civilians, usually women.

New standards certainly apply. I'm just not sure if I agree with them...

[Brewerstroupe]

09:20 PM on 07/26/2010

"Take democracy.­"

Democracy is no guarantee of either an ethical government or moral populace. The U.S. is case in point. The "rage against Israel" is paltry compared with the rage against the racial discrimina­tion during the fifties, against the Vietnam War in the sixties for example. On the other hand, the rage expressed by Israel in response to the Gaza Flotilla puts Kent State into the shade.

[John McAlpin]

10:39 PM on 07/26/2010

And rightly so.

[Klara Kovacs Benzicron]

12:25 PM on 07/28/2010

So true! It is the People not a Government that will make all the difference­. Government = governs, who wants to be governed? When one give its power away, it is practicall­y impossible to get it back.
I bought a property Commercial in 1997 and in its papers from the previous owners of the 60's it stated that this property could not be sold to anyone of color. I was shocked when I read it, could not believe that it was in the Escrow papers. Thought wow if I were of Color that would be a class action lawsuit for discrimina­tion. But there is reverse discrimina­tion also, I mean are we not all of a particular color, be it white, yellow, brown or black? Humanity as a whole needs to grow up, we have much bigger problems coming soon, relating to environmen­t etc..

[marco01]

04:34 PM on 07/26/2010

I will never understand the sentiment so common among Zionist saying that Palestinia­ns do not have a right to remain on land they have populated since ancient times. They often site dictates imposed by foreign imperialis­t colonial powers, these outside powers do not have these rights, only the peoples of those lands have such rights.

[Anbreen]

05:18 PM on 07/26/2010

And, people form the US and Eastern Europe have "right of return." Seems a bit bass-ackwa­rd.

[enderM]

06:12 PM on 07/26/2010

theJews are also "of those lands"....­.so I guess they "have such rights" as well...acc­ording to your theory. well all right then.

[marco01]

08:17 PM on 07/26/2010

Their claim is an ancient religious based claim that would not be considered for ANY other group.

Yes, Jews should be permitted to return to what they consider their homeland, but the should be subject to the will of the people currently there.