City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Sol Stern
Misdirected Palestinian Rage « Back to Story

View Comments (18)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 18 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
One standard for the Jews and one standard for others. Why is there no talk of the Turks quitting Anatolia and returning to central Asia from whence they came? We know that the White Europeans conquered North America and conducted genocide against the indigenous populations, but few acknowledge that Arab Muslims conquered North Africa and conducted (and continue to)genocide against the indigenous populations.
keep it up Sol, if only the other unconverted people were listening.....
Michael Santomauro March 03, 2011 at 9:24 AM
Dear Michael OF March 02, 2011 AT 11:49 PM:

Thank you for your response.

I am not making the CLAIMS, nor I am writing most of this. I am quoting verbatim others!

Virtually all of them are:THE JEWISH AND ISRAELI ACADEMICS who are disagreeing with you!



And your last paragraph you wrote on February 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM is not coming from a SUPREMACIST sentiment on your part?

It reminds me of a New York Magazine article by Jennifer Senior who was trying to convince her readers that:

"Charlemagne “lured” Jews there to lend money."

Give me a break!

Michael Santomauro


Ahh -- the mask falls away.

You allege: To paraphrase your last paragraph you basically wrote: “Of course, there’s another side to this shining coin. Jewish cleverness has also been an enduring feature of anti-Semitic paranoia.”

I basically wrote no such thing. But I see this conversation has little or nothing to do with things historical, political, even Palestinian, and everything to do with things Jewish.

And you further spit: "If we had a proper scientific study involving IQ tests that are not skewed to fit one group in particular ... then all this Jewish intellectual narcissism would disappear up its own arsehole. Which is precisely why we will never see such a thing, for it would be truly “anti-Semitic”.

"As long as we’re playing with racism and stereotypes, where do Jews rank in the greed and power scale? Or the bad landlord scale? Or the cause of social inequality, war and exploitation of lesser people scale?"

"We" aren't playing with racism and stereotypes, you are.

You were so careful to cite your earlier mistatements, out of context quotes, irrelevent asides, erroneous statistics, and discredited academics. Surely you can validate the greed and power scale, and the social inequality, war and exploitation of lesser people scale, and my favorite, the bad landlord scale? They all go to the same place -- your malicious projection of your own real or imagined shortcomings, a classic demonstration of scapegoating.

I think you have given many readers an education beyond anything you might have imagined -- about yourself.
I couldn't agree more with Santomauro. Very, very well said.
Michael Santomauro March 01, 2011 at 7:09 AM
Dear Michael February 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM:

Thank you for your kind response. But every point you raised is in disagreement with the the "New Jewish Historians" in and of Israel. The government of Israel at the negotiation table do not make these false allegations. In response to (your) paragraph #2, I based my numbers on the PRESENT VALUE SCALE (PVS), meaning the dollar value from 1973, not a how much we gave Israel, but what it would be worth in 2002 dollars.

Before directing you to a LINK for my response to you, I will address your last paragraph.

To paraphrase your last paragraph you basically wrote: “Of course, there’s another side to this shining coin. Jewish cleverness has also been an enduring feature of anti-Semitic paranoia.”

The implication here for your readers misunderstanding is that anti-Semitism is the result of Jewish intellect. Historically it has been as a result of resource competition, belief in a moral and intellectual superiority and a fierce policy of non assimilation with the host countries which initially offered you admittance with friendliness. Anti-Semitism is not in any way a mental illness.

Western Civilization is a European-white accomplishment and Judaism has always been an appendage. Not the other way around.

We are a better world today because Western Civilization took the road to Athens over the road to Jerusalem.

If we had a proper scientific study involving IQ tests that are not skewed to fit one group in particular (by, for example, including musical intelligence tests that are currently excluded because some people “don’t believe in” musical intelligence) then all this Jewish intellectual narcissism would disappear up its own arsehole. Which is precisely why we will never see such a thing, for it would be truly “anti-Semitic”.

As long as we’re playing with racism and stereotypes, where do Jews rank in the greed and power scale? Or the bad landlord scale? Or the cause of social inequality, war and exploitation of lesser people scale?

Please go to the LINK:

Jews for Justice in the Middle East

Brief excerpt from the above LINK:

Didn’t the Palestinians leave their homes voluntarily during the 1948 war?

“Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was ‘self-inspired’. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action — whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine. However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set straight, the Israeli establishment still refused to accept moral or political responsibility for the refugee problem it — or its predecessors — actively created.” Peretz Kidron, quoted in “Blaming the Victims,” ed. Said and Hitchens.

Arab orders to evacuate non-existent

“The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put.” Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

Ethnic cleansing — continued at the LINK from Jews For Justice in the Middle East:

Michael Santomauro


The many, many cites listed act, not as accreditation of your point of view, but as sand thrown up to obscure the reader. It is pointless to respond to each assertion, but several themes deserve rebuttal.

It may be your opinion that G-d's promise to the Jewish people of Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel, is "a fairy story", but millions of Jews believe it, millions of Christians believe it, and it is even so written in the Koran, although Islamists refuse to accept it. Even so, many Moslems believe it also. When the day comes that moderate Islam refuses the totalitarian instincts of political Islam, Jew and Moslem will live in peace, Jewish sovereignty in Israel notwithstanding. Although it is your belief, with no factual basis, that today's Israelis have no genetic relationship to those of biblical Zion, it really doesn't matter. Israelis are now at home, and they aren't leaving.

Stating that Israel is a result of pre-planned ethnic cleansing is a bit of a stretch, considering Israel's well documented attempts to persuade its Arab population not to leave during the War of Independence. Arab leaders, as is well known, encouraged the Arab population to leave during the fighting, promising they could return after the Jews had been destroyed. The fact that now there are more than a million Arab citizens of Israel also makes this one hard to swallow, but perhaps you believe the apartheid stuff also.

In describing aid to Israel, your assertion that Israel represents a "net drain" of 3 TRILLION dollars to the American economy is absurd, and overstated by a factor of 30. That is, Israel has received about $100 billion since 1949, and much of that was in the form of loans. The assertion that Israel doesn't spend any of the aid she receives in the U.S. is patently false. The percentage varies year to year, but as much as 75% of what Israel receives is stipulated to be spent here, and is a benefit to more than 1,000 companies in 47 states. For those who want details on the US financial aid to Israel, look here:

Mr. Santomauro spends a lot of time trying to make the argument that Israel is stealing the water of Judea and Samaria, denying it to the Arab population. In fact, many agreements are in place to develop and share water resources, including 20 major water projects approved in 2010 by the Israeli government for Judea and Samaria. As usual, Israel takes the lead in this development, and there has been a steady improvement in the water are sewage infrastructure since 1967, when the area came under Jewish control as a result of winning a defensive war against it. Before that time Jordan did almost nothing to develop the area. Water resources are a complicated problem for all countries in the region, not just Israel and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. For a comprehensive look at water development, look here:

Mr. Santomauro believes that Egypt didn't really start the 1967 war, Israel did. The proof, of course, is that Egyptian armies massing in the Sinai after Egypt expelled the UN, and Jordanian and Syrian armies moving to offensive positions, all to the melody in the Arab street of throwing the Jews into the sea, really meant nothing. There was no threat. Noam Chomsky and the NY Times said so. Of course Israel had a choice, as Begin said. The choice was to strike first or commit suicide. The proximate cause of war was up to 100,000 Egyptian troops moving into the Sinai towards Israel, and Egyptian blockading the Israeli port of Eilat to international shipping, a specific causus belli. These acts were the first shots of the war, and they were Egyptian, not Israeli.

To the issue of Israeli expansion, Israel must be working very hard at that, indeed, since she is one of the world's smallest countries. In the sixty years since Israel's founding, she has stated repeatedly she has no claims against Lebanon, Jordon, or Egypt. She has renounced any claim to Gaza, and has attempted to negotiate her claim against Syria (Golan). The Arabs in Palestine could have had their state any number of times, but they have refused it, since it would have meant settling all claims, and giving up their war against Israel.

As for Israel not being successful because Jews are less secure there than elsewhere in the world, so much so that a "great majority" prefer to live somewhere else, the truth is that with each year the balance point shifts towards Israel, and now there are more than six million Jews there, and about 13 million worldwide. A 53% majority is hardly great. In any case, Israel is the only place Jews can defend themselves, where they can take their fate into their own hands, and that means a lot. They give better than they get too, which I suspect is the real root of your fanciful and contrived complaints.

And finally, to the point of Israel being loathed around the world, I must admit there is some truth to that, even as the rest of the world takes from the Jews their contributions to every pursuit of excellence towards which mankind has striven. Such is antisemitism. But when has it ever been different? Jews have been disdained when weak or strong, successful or indigent, many or few in number. Frankly, we don't care. If you don't like us, mind your own business and leave us alone.
Basically, the Palestinian position now amounts to a refusal to have peace with Israel unless the Palestinians are given control over Israel's immigration policy.

In short, "peace" for the Palestinians is contingent on Israel's agreement to be wiped out.
Michael Santomauro February 27, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Dear Sol Stern:

Jews for Justice in the Middle East


The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

Was the 1967 war defenisve? — continued

“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights

“Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] ‘They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.’” The New York Times, May 11, 1997

The history of Israeli expansionism

“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

Expansionism — continued

“The main danger which Israel, as a ‘Jewish state’, poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion’s idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state.” Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years.”

Expansionism — continued

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt’s personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: “[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all — let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.” Quoted in Livia Rokach, “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.”

But wasn’t the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel’s security?

“Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel’s security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union — then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs — into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

“The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. ‘The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,’ writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. ‘The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.’” Allan Brownfield in “Issues of the American Council for Judaism.” Fall 1997.[Ed.—This was one of many such proposals]

What happened after the 1967 war ended?

“In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel’s military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces. “Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation,” ed. Lockman and Beinin.

World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza.

“Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel’s occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel’s action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a ‘serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.’ “ John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation

“A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to report that, ‘water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.’

“A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality.” Betty Jane Bailey, in “The Link”, December 1996.

Israeli occupation — continued

“You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or more have experienced — some many, many times — the [Israeli] army breaking into the home, beating relatives, destroying things. Many were beaten themselves, had bones broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had these things happen to siblings and neighbors...The emotional aspect of the child is affected by the [lack of] security. He needs to feel safe. We see the consequences later if he does not. In our research, we have found that children who are exposed to trauma tend to be more extreme in their behaviors and, later, in their political beliefs.” Dr Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, quoted in “The Journal of Palestine Studies,” Summer 1996, p.84

Israeli occupation — continued

“There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a 35-year-old [Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in Israel in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be shocked one day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it had been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done — the land, after all, was his — I was told that a paper given to him the next day by an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license. Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never Palestinians. This is apartheid.” Edward Said, in “The Nation”, May 4, 1998.

All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.

“The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention’s Article 49, which states, ‘The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

Excerpts from the U.S. State Department’s reports during the Intifada

“Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:

1988: ‘Many avoidable deaths and injuries’ were caused because Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...’

1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel acted as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after they had surrendered, or after they had been subdued...

1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published ‘detailed credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in prisons and detention centers.” Former Congressman Paul Findley, “Deliberate Deceptions.”

Jerusalem — Eternal, Indivisible Capital of Israel?

“Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser points out that the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day War. Responsibility for drawing those lines fell to Central Command Chief Rehavan Ze’evi. The line he drew ‘took in not only the five square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem — but also 65 square kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most of which never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became part of Israel’s eternal and indivisible capital.’” Allan Brownfield in The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000.
An illuminating, if depressing, primer on the continued Palestinian resistance to creating a real Palestinian state. For whatever reason, compromise remains a banned word.
The Palestinian people deserve better leadership.
Dear Michael:

You wrote in your POST directed at me:

"Israel exists by the same rights as any nation in the world, and then some."

Leaving aside the fairy story of God’s promise, (which even if true would have no bearing on the matter because the Jews who “returned” in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews), the Zionist state’s assertion of legitimacy rests on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN General Assembly’s partition plan resolution of 1947.

The only real relevance of the Balfour Declaration is in the fact that it was an expression of both the willingness of a British government to use Jews for imperial purposes and the willingness of Zionist Jews to be used. The truth is that Britain had no right whatsoever to promise Zionism a place in Palestine, territory the British did not possess. (Palestine at the time was controlled and effectively owned by Ottoman Turkey). The Balfour Declaration did allow Zionism to say that its claim to Palestine had been recognised by a major power, and then to assert that the Zionist enterprise was therefore a legitimate one. But the legitimacy Britain conveyed by implication was entirely spurious, meaning not genuine, false, a sham.

Zionism’s assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 29 November 1947 is pure propaganda nonsense, as demonstrated by an honest examination of the record of what actually happened.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised with my other POST above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

It can be said without fear of contradiction (except by Zionists) that what de-legitimizes Israel is the truth of history. And that is why Zionism has worked so hard, today with less success than in the past and therefore with increasing desperation, to have the truth suppressed.

Michael Santomauro
Dear David W and to Michael:

Israel has been the BIGGEST welfare state in the history of humanity!

Using the year 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $3 trillion in 2002 dollars (PRESENT VALUE SCALE). If divided by today's population, that is more than $11,400 per American citizen that has sent his money to Israel in taxes. This is an amount almost four times greater than the cost of the Vietnam war, also in 2002 dollars.

Israel has never been self-supporting. It has always required massive subsidies from the outside - above all from the United States. In addition, Germany and other European states and companies have paid out many billions in "restitution," and wealthy Jewish communities, especially in the US, have provided tax-deductable substantial financial assistance-"a net drain" on the USA economy.

--US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy.

--US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

-- US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

Israel was founded on terrorism, massacres, ethnic cleansing and the dispossession of its native Palestinian population. Even now it violates international law, inflicts a harsh collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza, and continues to deny Palestinians their human and national rights. In accord with its Jewish supremacist ideology, Israel's discrimination against non-Jews is systematic and institutional. It is the only country in the region that occupies territory of its neighbors, that refuses to define its borders, and which possesses a large and illegal arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Even as a Jewish sanctuary, Israel cannot be regarded as a success. Jews are less safe and secure in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world. The great majority of Jews in the world have preferred not to live in "their" country.

Around the world, including the United States, loathing of Israel is widespread and steadily mounting. In Asia and Europe, political and business leaders increasingly regard Israel and its policies as harmful to global order and stability.

Regional demographic trends are also important. In Israel and its occupied territories, the Arab population is growing at a faster rate than the Jewish population, and within 20 years non-Jews will almost certainly be the majority.

Very few persons in 1985 foresaw the collapse six years later of the mighty and seemingly solid Soviet Union. But its end was predictable because it was an essentially artificial entity based on an inhumane and impractical ideology. Although Israel is a formidable military power, it is an aberrant, crisis-prone state, artificially kept alive with outside support, and based on an unworkable ideology.

Given its artificial character and built-in problems, as well as global political-economic and regional demographic trends, Israel's future in the next 60 years is not bright.

Michael Santomauro
Let's hope we give the Palestinians even more opportunity to direct their rage at the US when we quit taking money from American Taxpayers and giving it to an organization that is anything but peaceful (how many hundreds of millions of dollars have been given and for what? Insults?).
@ Santomauro. You state: "The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state."

What a crock! Israel was created in the same way as the Arab states, from the ruins of the Ottoman empire. No one asked the Turks for approval, and the Turks never asked anyone for approval in creating their empire. For that matter, Omar or any subsequent Caliph never asked any indigenous people for permission to create the Caliphate. And today's Islamists are not asking permission to create a new Caliphate -- they insist on doing it from the wreckage of Western civilization, a work in progress.

Israel exists by the same rights as any nation in the world, and then some. They conquered the place, they defend it, it is their patrimony, their claim is more than 3,000 years old, they have continuously lived there and no other peoples have ever had a state or a capital there. And perhaps the best claim of all -- they built the place into a world marvel, all while under continual siege, and after crawling out of Europe's crematoria.

Who has put forward a better claim than that?
Of course, Chaim Stern is giving an unbiased opinion.
Michael Santomauro February 26, 2011 at 9:58 PM
Dear Sol Stern:

In the name of pragmatism, willingness to “merely to recognise” Israel – meaning to accept and live in peace with an Israel inside its pre-June ‘67 borders – has long been the formal Palestinian and all-Arab position. Why does it stop short of recognising Israel’s “right to exist”, and why, really, does it matter so much to Zionism that Palestinians recognise this right?

The answer is in the following.

According to history as written by the winner, Zionism, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is propaganda nonsense.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.
The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.

Michael Santomauro
Wow! An anonymous comment saying the writing is a lie. Proof? Read the Palestine papers. Or, just listen to Osama Bin Laden.
read the Palestine papers. But I guess you already know that what you are writing is a lie