Pro-Palestinianism: A Movement of Hate, Pt. I

[Editor’s note: This is the first installment of a four-part series. To view later segments of “Pro-Palestinianism: A Movement of Hate,” please click: Part II, Part III and Part IV .]

It should be patently obvious to anyone with a passing interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the Western pro-Palestinian movement has long since gone beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism and moral acceptability.

Israel is of course facing ever-increasing hostility at every level internationally. This immense hostility has largely been brought into effect by the populist successes of the Western anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian movement so it is time to expose this collective entity to greater scrutiny – to ask difficult questions due to the significant power it now wields. This article seeks to establish that hatred is the driving force behind many elements of this movement, and since Israel is the sole existing Jewish nation, serious questions need to be asked about anti-Semitic sentiment.

A particular, rather unique haughtiness is one of the most notable features of Western attitudes towards Israel. Fellow Irishman Donnchadh O’Liathain wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post in 2004 describing the European attitude towards Israel: a dichotomy of “good Israelis” and “bad Israelis” – those who are pro-peace and those who are less so. The theme of his article was the invasiveness of attitudes towards Israel, an intense meddlesome desire to impose a solution on the conflict without proper recognition of Israel’s needs. It is indeed galling when the citizens and leaders of larger secure states that have luxuriated in peace for many decades, bar the occasional fracas in distant lands, pass judgement so readily on a tiny state surrounded by continuous extreme hostility, which is clearly not as a consequence of its actions but of its very existence. If we consider the fear experienced in the US after the tragedy of 9/11, and also consider the trauma and political changes experienced in other nations after very serious terrorist attacks, it is not difficult to see how such countries would respond if faced with similar conditions.

There are several forms of pro-Palestinianism which can be categorised in terms of extremism. Moderates think the Palestinians are largely the victims in this conflict and do not advocate terrorism at all and may even support a fairly just two-state solution. The second group support the Palestinian cause without endorsing the more extreme acts of Palestinian terrorism but nonetheless tend to find them “understandable” and may demand solutions that nullify Israel’s Jewish identity, e.g. the “right to return.” The most extreme group supports all acts of Palestinian terrorism no matter how debased or destructive to Israeli civilians. By implication they support a one-state solution – namely, a Palestinian state or a greater Jordan/Syria. This article focuses principally on the latter two groups of Palestinian supporters, which have grown greatly in popularity in the last decade. Such people are often highly vocal and may campaign vociferously for the Palestinian cause. The opinions of these people may require some interpretation as they might not be completely forthcoming with their views on the conflict. Those who have extreme opinions often appear to present their views as being milder than they truly are, hence the usual contention that they support peace. This would be especially important if they hold positions of power in influential political institutions or the media.

A pertinent question needs to be asked: what is the primary motivation of the Western anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian movement? Is it a genuine concern for human rights, which is always admirable if not necessarily justified, or is it a rank anti-Semitism masquerading undercover of darkness as a concern for the Palestinians? Obviously, I subscribe to the latter opinion but whichever view the reader may endorse, one question should be addressed in order to clarify the matter at hand: where does legitimate sensible (i.e. reasonably fair and moderately justifiable) criticism of Israel end and become abusive condemnation that overtly goes beyond what is evidential? The answer indicates the sincerity and intent of the pro-Palestinian movement, for their words and actions ought to be their measure.

It is indeed important to recognise that no state should be above criticism, just as no individual or group should be above criticism for the simple reason that all agents have the capacity to commit acts that are harmful to others. Thus, the question here is not should Israel be criticised generally speaking but rather how is Israel being criticised?

A detailed understanding of the contrast between reasonable criticism and abusive condemnation would be useful – of course other word use with similar meaning is also applicable. Something is considered abusive where coercion or bullying occurs, where there is a desire to cause distress or harm. Abuse is described as the “Improper treatment or usage; application to a wrong or bad purpose; misuse; perversion; … verbal maltreatment; An unjust, corrupt or wrongful practice…; … insulting speech; abusive language.”/ [Wiktionary]. Condemnation is of course censure by attributing blame, strong disapproval or even demonization. An abusive condemnation would be highly damaging, distressing and motivated by ill intent, in which case it could well deliberately exceed what is clearly indicated in evidence. This would not simply be applicable to Israel as a state. It would apply to its citizens, its interests, and by its very nature the malicious intent could apply to Jewish people generally, of which Israel is principally composed.

While many conflicts are compared with World War II and aggressors are compared with the Nazis, this motif has never been more widely used than when judging Israel. No pro-Palestinian demonstration is complete without the symbol of the swastika within the Star of David on badges and placards. Indeed, this symbol more so than any other has come to represent the pro-Palestinian movement. Since the Star of David is also the prime symbol of Judaism it can also be clearly interpreted as a symbol highly abusive to the Jewish religion and those that constitute the Jewish people, especially due to the tragedy of the Holocaust. Comparing Israeli figures with leading Nazi figures is also not uncommon. In Ireland, during Operation Cast Lead, Sein Fein (IRA) member Aengus O’Snodaigh repeatedly compared the Israeli ambassador to Ireland with Josef Goebbels, the master propagandist, for merely trying to explain that the invasion was due to continued attacks. Divisive figures such as disgraced Scottish politician George Galloway declared during a UK protest last year: “Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943.”

Palestinian sympathisers make it abundantly clear that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. Clearly some will say this is a misrepresentation: that in fact they criticise Israel’s response as being heavy handed. This may be true for some but the dominant theme in the pro-Palestinian monologue is that Palestinians have a right to “resist” as they put it, while Israel has no essential right to respond. This is clear time and time again in their argumentation.

Judging by the views held by more extreme pro-Palestinians it would appear that Palestinian terrorists have a right to do whatsoever they wish to Israeli citizens. We see very extreme language used in the media and even more so on internet websites throughout the West. It does become essentially irrelevant or morally justifiable if Hamas rains missiles on Israeli citizens because according to so many pro-Palestinians, Israel is (to borrow their commonly used terminology) a “pariah”, “colonial”, “apartheid”, “fascist”, “criminal”, “nazi”, “jihadist”, “terrorist” state. Israel is a state that butchers women and children, harvests Palestinians for body parts, and of course has “ethnically cleansed” the Palestinians. Israel has committed many “holocausts” against the Palestinians, so accordingly some even think it more reprehensible than the Third Reich. With such extraordinarily twisted extreme black and white understandings of the conflict that contravene the most obvious truths, it is little wonder that no justification of Israel’s right to defend itself will satisfy such individuals. No reasoned argument based on facts will be sufficient.

Considering such information, it is fair to say that very many (probably a majority) of pro-Palestinians have a very real hatred of Israel. Some may protest that this is not so but, for example, would any reasonably impartial observer with a modicum of fairness deny one state the right to respond to continued extreme aggression when it is a genuine affliction to its citizens? Would such a fair, impartial observer not accept that Jihadist Palestinian terrorism is part of the problem and its moral legitimization not a solution? To take a recent issue, many pro-Palestinians defended the Goldstone report because it is now yet another weapon in their arsenal to bash Israel. Would any impartial observer accept such a report when a Mrs. Mary Robinson, primary architect of the Durban I anti-Semitic hate-fest, declined to accept the biased brief? Any impartial observer would obviously accept justice must be fair, so why support it? Other than ill-intent, there can be no justification for continually propagating severe exaggerations and outright lies.

The issue of proportionality was frequently raised by Palestinian supporters during Cast Lead. It was often said that the rockets fired into Israel were actually home made or little more than flares. However, the principal rockets were Grad rockets supplied by Iran and simple yet quite potent Kassam. While such rockets have basic guidance systems they are nonetheless of a military grade. Grads have the capacity to destroy a house, for example. Hundreds raining down on towns leading up to the Israeli response was clearly not sustainable. Condemnation and talk of a holocaust swiftly followed even before the ground invasion. The association of Gaza with the Warsaw ghetto was a common motif. Pro-Palestinians characterise the dead in Gaza as primarily innocent civilians but it is worth noting various sources indicate 70 to 74% of those killed were males between the ages of 15 and 40 – the most relevant for combat.  Clearly the only acceptable Israeli response for Palestinian sympathisers was to put up with it, other than the ideal of surrender to Hamas. The inference that Israel had no right to defend its citizens can be asserted because no other rational conclusion to such arguments can be arrived upon. The issue of proportionality cannot be answered by simply discussing casualty figures. If the citizens of any state are exposed to intolerable conditions where they cannot go about their daily lives with a basic level of safety for an extended period of time, that state has a moral obligation to stop the forces causing that situation. Therefore, a proportional response is to take the necessary action to stop the attacks and prevent them from reoccurring within a reasonable timeframe; nothing more and nothing less.

  • Kim Bruce

    Where is Joshua when you need him?

  • bpaolucci

    I'd like to ask you to comment on the San Remo treaty and the Churchill papers. I'm doing my own research into these documents and so far have found that the San Remo treaty, signed by Arabs, Jews as well as the European nations who worked on the treaty, gave Jerusalem to Israel (Jews) and that the Churchill papers changed that. Note that the Churchill papers were not written by Churchill, but instead by a high ranking member of the British government who was Jewish. Those papers gave parts of Jerusalem to Arabs in exchange for the Arabs ceasing to riot in the streets.

    My question is, did the British have the right to in effect revise the San Remo treaty? And why is it we haven't heard a word about these documents until now when a lawyer, Dr. Gautier, releases his doctoral thesis papers on the subject. Take note that this lawyer has concluded that Israel belongs to the Jews. None the less, it seems to me that these documents would put an end to the conflict in the Middle East once and for all.

    Your analysis/views would be most appreciated.

    • Turbeaux

      You can study the San Remo Conference, the Churchhill papers, the various intervening treaties, the 1949 Armistice, UNSCR 242, etc. all you want as it is all very meaningless. The fact of the matter is the Dar al Islam does not recognize any of those resolutions as being valid because they only recognize and adhere to Sharia law as opposed to manmade laws, because Sharia law emanates directly from God and because it is divine it is infallible and perfectly just, whereas manmade laws are infallible and unjust by definition.

      Moreover, the Dar al Islam cannot make peace with Israel without committing blasphemy at the same time, and blasphemy under Islam is an offense punishable by death. Hence, there is no peace possible as the Dar al Islam’s jihad, in which the so-called Palestinians are the proxies of the Dar al Islam, is permanent and will last for as long as Israel is able to hold on to its territory and the Dar al Islam remains strong enough to pursue jihad.

      Likewise with the Dar al Islam’s jihad against the Hindus in India, that jihad like the one against Israel, is also permanent and will last for as long as India is able to hold on to its territory and the Dar al Islam remains strong enough to pursue jihad.

      • bpaolucci

        I don't doubt what you've said but, I still think making these two documents known to the rest of the world would go along way. I still can't figure out if England had the right to alter the treaty. Do you know? I can't get at the actual documents.

        Its interesting to note that last month was the aniversary of the treaty and very few people knew it. A celebration was held in San Remo. Daniel Pipes, an authority on Middle East and those issues attended. When I asked him about Dr. Gautier's doctoral paper he said he was familiar with it and that was all he said. No comments from his newsletter on this aniversary celebration either. Strange.

        • zee

          According to attorney Howard Grief in his book "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law", the British didn't have the right to revise the treaty.

          WRT to Gauthier, you might find this interesting. It is an interview he did on Canadian television

          • bpaolucci

            I'll watch the video next, meantime, can you figure out a reason for not making this stuff known to the world and in fact going out of the way to keep it quiet? We have international courts where this could be adjudicated, enforced whatever.

            Who gains by keeping the conflict going?

        • zee

          According to attorney Howard Grief in his book "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law", the British didn't have the right to revise the treaty.

          WRT to Gauthier, you might find this interesting. It is an interview he did on Canadian television

  • PAthena

    The conflict (war) between the Arabs and Israel could be ended instantly if the Arabs stopped attacking Israel. Their opposition to Israel is religious, the Arabs as Mohammedans (though not all Arab Israelis) oppose a Jewish state.
    The name "Palestinian" has been hijacked, with history rewrite, for Arabs who live in the old Palestine Mandate. The name "Palestine" was given to Judea by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after he defeated the last Jewish uprising, under Bar Kochba, in 135 A.D., to forever eradicate all memory of Judea and Jews (he outlawed Judaism). Since then, the name "Palestine" became synonymous with "land of the Jews" or "the Holy Land," and "Palestinian" synonymous with "Jew." That is why the Zionists wanted a Palestine Mandate, and Great Britain was awarded the "Palestine Mandate" to be a homeland for the Jews. The Soviet Union and Egypt under Gamal Nasser invented the "Palestine Liberation Organization" in Cairo in 1964, and it was Soviet propaganda which led to calling Arabs "Palestinians."

  • AntiFascist18

    It is nothing but rank anti-Semitism, period.

    Do the scum who cry about the "poor, suffering Palestinians" – Mister Chimpie's own words described his feelings – care about other people who are REALLY oppressed?


    Do they decry the murder of innocent animals in their cages in the Gaza Zoo by Palestinians?


    Do they even acknowledge the suffering of Palestinian Christians under the hands of Hamas?


    Many of these hypocrites and Neo-Nazis of the Left live on ILLEGALLY Occupied Native American land. Are they willing to turn their own keys over to those whom their ancestors truly brutally forced off their lands – after killing scores of them?


    Anyone who nowadays goosesteps alongside Palestinian Muslims are cheating Neo-Nazis like David Duke and Jeremiah Wright of their hard earned shekels. They are Nazis like them, and are no better than the two of those scumbags are.

  • couchtripper

    Why do those who support Israel always seem so bloodthuirsty and INSANE?

    They're all fucking weirdos and religious nutters. Every last one of them. The only people who should be even considered to be allowed to move to the area should be those of provable genetic connection to the area, not just nutjob extremists who want to kill people and teach their children to hate.

    • Stern

      apart from the completely unnecessary swearing, you made a mistake in your first line. You meant to say "Why do those who support the Palestinians always seem to bloodthuirsty (sic) and INSANE?"

      • Stern

        Oops, sorry, I misunderstood Clearly you were being ironic, demonstrating the author's point, weren't you?

    • delbwato

      Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open you mouth an remove all doubt

    • gracie

      Why is it that people from the left who oppose Israel can't even spell properly and are so full of obsenities and such vitriol! Is it not possible to get some sensible conversation going with these people based on rational facts? They simpley refuse to look at the real evidence on the ground and fall back on emotions and foul language.

  • seels4truth

    couchtripper describes himself in his screed. Israel's supporters are insane and bloodthirsty? Why is it that Jew haters like couchtripper can't stand a Jew that sticks up for himself? Israeli Jews do NOT teach their kids to hate. Arabs do that. Israeli Jews teach their kids to want peace. Arabs teach their kids to seek martyrdom in the glory of allah. couchtripper is like a roach that comes out in the dark (internet anonymity) to shout his anti-Semitic rantings.

  • USMCSniper

    Palestinians are nothing more than the subsidized proxy terrorists of Iran who strap munitions on their own women and children and send them out on homicide-suicide missions to murder other women and children in markets, restuarants, and on school buses. The Palestinians have forfeited their right to even exist.

  • aspacia

    BRAVO! I have saying this for years. What about the 650,000 Jews driven from Arab lands? Why can't the vast Arab World absorb their brethren, as tiny Israel did? Arab/Muslims want to destroy Israel. Israel must annihilate her enemies.

  • Ron Grant

    "If the citizens of any state are exposed to intolerable conditions where they cannot go about their daily lives with a basic level of safety for an extended period of time, that state has a moral obligation to stop the forces causing that situation."

    This assertion applies equally if not more so to the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation and oppression.It would easily have applied to the Blacks under Apartheid South Africa and racist Rhodesia.Of course,it is an extreme challenge to walk a mile in your enemies sandals.

    "Therefore a proportional response is to take the necessary action to stop the attacks and prevent them from reoccurring within a reasonable timeframe; nothing more and nothing less."

    I think many people believe that point was reached far earlier then the three weeks of relentless and punishing firepower reigned down, at times indiscriminately, by the IDF.And ,like it or not,the numbers of dead innocents and destruction to infrastructure was a legitimate criteria or marker in determining "proportionality" .We did see the images of the rockets fired from Gaza with their limited accuracy and destructive firepower e.g.

    Hamas's homemade rocket, known as the Qassam, is grossly imprecise, carries a small warhead of about 10 kilograms of explosives.

    The imported missiles, Katyushas, are better guided, travel farther and cause more damage because they have a warhead of up to 20 kilograms, roughly the weight of a cannon shell from one of Israel's Merkava tanks.
    The Grad is a specific type of Katyusha,” with a diameter of 122 millimeters (4.8 inches) and a weight of 55 kilograms (121 pounds), Rubin said. The warhead weighs about 15 kilograms, half which is explosive material,
    compared to the accuracy and destruction from Israeli shelling and bombs e.g.F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles, and a wide array of munitions, including white phosphorus and DIME..500lb (227kg) Mark-82 fin guided bomb, which had markings indicating parts were made by the US company Raytheon. They also found fragments of US-made white phosphorus artillery shells, marked M825 A1.

    In comparison,the apparently huge numbers of potential American casualties vs the numbers of Japanese civilians killed using atomic bombs was factored in this grave decision to end WWII.The morality and justification is still debated. Even the firebombing of German cities on the part of the Allies had merit but is still debated.

  • Ron Grant

    "Israel is of course facing ever-increasing hostility at every level internationally."

    As it should,but it is ineffective.As with apartheid South Africa and racist Rhodesia, punishing political,economical and social sanctions must be imposed on this oppressive Zionist state for the unconscionable oppression of the Palestinian people.Otherwise,the West becomes complicit in Palestinian suffering.

    "This article seeks to establish that hatred is the driving force behind many elements of this movement,"

    While certain elements of the "idiot fringe",e.g.Ahmadinejad may be rightly accused of these anti-Semitic claims,I suggest the above is merely a "red herring" ,a pathetic attempt to deflect valid criticism of Zionist aggression against the Palestinian people.It serves to cheapen the lessons of the Holocaust which is a tragedy in itself.If the criticism is sincere,it is a delusion and regrettable but on a grand scale.

    ".. attitudes towards Israel, an intense meddlesome desire to impose a solution on the conflict without proper recognition of Israel’s needs."

    What about the needs of the Palestinian people?What is contemporary Jewish needs and suffering compared to the Palestinians?Do you not see any comparisons nor analogies to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Palestinians in Gaza?To the Bantustans of Apartheid South Africa and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? The Holocaust cannot stand alone in the history of man's inhumanity to man.It is difficult to imagine how man could act more inhumanely then when we hunted Jews and placed them in death camps.But it doesn't mean Jews can't walk out of these same death camps and victimize another vulnerable people i.e.the Palestinians.And this is what European Jews did.And to their shame,they continue to victimize the Palestinian people.


    • Carolina Don

      Ron: It is strange that you call for the Israeli to "return to their European, Russian, Ethiopian, and American lands, and leave Palestine alone and in peace." At the same time you mention the Diaspora, a time when they were forced to leave the land by the mighty Roman Army, not by their own choice. Since 67 AD when Titus and his troops destroyed the Temple , Israel has wandered throughout the world persecuted and destitute. Still, in their heart they prayed for a return to the land, and as the Arabs pray toward Mecca, the Jew prayed toward Israel. I have little pity for a 'Palistinian homeland' because the Arab has shown they will never compromise. Israel gave up the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights yet were still attacked. The Arab has declared that so long as Israel has one foot of land there will be no peace and yet Israel that is made to be the war monger. Brother, I do pray that there will be peace, but I don't look for it soon unless the True Messiah comes.______________________________________________________________________

    • Tommo2

      Well we all know where you stand on anti-semitism. Clearly mired deeply within it. To align Israel with that of South Africa during the apartheid era is a nonsense. Only bigots who know nothing of that time would come out with this tosh. It suits the Marxists and liberal left of this world to smear Israel with apartheid practices to bring about its demise, just as similar propaganda was relentlessly directed toward South Africa that eventually ended white rule there. Well, I hear you say, our campaign for the ethnic cleansing of white people from Africa worked well so lets try the same tactic on Israel. Unfortunately for you and your comrades and, unlike in southern Africa, Israel is no push over and has strong international support, it is also well armed and has the will to use them should the need arise.

      Incidentally, Rhodesia was not a racist state. Apartheid did operate there under Ian Smith's government. I presume that you are in favour of Mugabe's racist and tribalist dictatorship. Any government as long as its black would be on your agenda regardless of the horrific atrocities being committed there which, in no small way, has been bought about by ignoramuses like you.

  • Kurt USA

    If the Muslims do not like the brave IDF's response to their cowardly murdering and attempted murdering of innocent women and children, then they should not be firing rockets, flair, or sending suicide bombers into Isreal. I for one think Isreal's response so far has been more restrained than any other country would be to unprovoked murderous attacks on its citizens. Isreal has a right to respond and protect its citizens. What about the proportional response of the Muslims? Since Isreal citizens are not sending their children into Muslim villages to blow up their women and children, then what gives them the right to do so to Isreal. Why are Muslims allowed to advocate Judenriden lands and genocide and yet are still considered valid members of the international civilized society? When the international community starts to enforce its genocide laws against the muslims, their retoric and their actions, then I will believe they are acting fairly and not on their obvious antisemetic biases.

  • Carolina Don

    If the Palistinians truely want peace, let them return to their Arab lands and leave Israel alone and in peace. I refuse to henceforth call them "Palistinians" because there was no such thing until the early 1960's, before that they were called Arabs. The name Palistinian is used to invoke pity and instill sympathy for "a people without a home". Call them Arabs as they are and they are surrounded by millions of their brethren. WONDERFUL ARTICLE Mr. Harris, and great comments also…with some pronounced exceptions. May God Bless Israel!!

    • Ron Grant

      "If the Palistinians truely want peace, let them return to their Arab lands and leave Israel alone and in peace. I refuse to henceforth call them "Palistinians" because there was no such thing until the early 1960's, "

      Alternatively,if the Israelis want peace,let them return to their European,Russian, Ethiopian and American lands and leave Palestine alone and in peace.They can take with them their German ,Russian surnames, their brown ,blond and red hair and their Yiddish language they inherited in the Diaspora.Better still,let them embrace their Palestinian brothers and sisters across the Wall and show the Muslim and Western worlds what Israeli's and Palestinians can achieve in a single state under one flag.

      Perhaps at one time there were no Palestinians.But one thing is clear,brother,along with the racist state of Israel, Zionism created the Palestinian.Just as in the furnaces of the Nazi death camps a new kind of Jew was forged.Again,we are all not so different.Interestingly and paradoxically enough,and certainly tragically,this new kind of Jew stumbled out of the death camps to victimized in turn the Arabs of Palestine. When will we ever learn,my friend.Muchiboy.

  • Ron Grant

    "..Muslim villages to blow up their women and children,..then what gives them the right to do so to Isreal."

    I could ask what gives the Israeli's the right to kill Palestinian women and children.Compare the total numbers of Palestinian children killed with the numbers of Jewish children killed.True,the IDF uses more conventional weaponry,e.g.tank shells,500 lb bombs,white phos shells,etc.Their delivery systems and platforms e.g.tanks,artillery, Blackhawk helicopters,F-16 Fighter planes,etc.are more efficient and morally acceptable then human bodies.
    Make no mistake,the Israelis are complicit in the suicide bombing that kill innocent Israeli Jews.The PLO and now Hamas were/are no match for the IDF.And if we accept the articles proposition that a people or government are entitled or morally obligated to protect against unjust aggression or enemies,then it applies likewise to the Palestinians.Israel may someday be prepared to use nukes in her defense.The Palestinians use what limited resources they have against a powerful and innovative foe,as morally reprehensible as it appears.Might does not make right.What does Israel expect when through her superior forces she oppresses the Palestinians for 60 years while nickel- and-diming them of their land and dignity?Something about the pigeons coming home to roost.Muchiboy

  • Chris

    I am reading a book at the moment by Howard Grief concerning the San Remo resolution April 24, 1920 , it is highly detailed and clearly shows that the Jews were betrayed by the powers that be at the time, namely Britain, France and to some extent the U.S, I don't wish to advertise, but I feel this is a very important book that puts the case adequately.
    The book is called 'The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law'.

  • solemnman

    An Israeli politician suggested, recently, that a northern portion of Israel ,known as the triangle ,should be handed over to the Palestinian authority as it is populated totally by Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.The suggestion was greeted by the Palestinian Israelis with demonstrations of protest ,outrage and violence .These Palestinians who form a large part of the 1,500,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel seem to , strangely ,prefer the "genocidal,nazi ,apparthied oppression" of israeli rule (so many commentaters here keep referring to)to coming under the benevolent rule of Fatta or Hamas ..
    For those who do not know and should know:no Jew is allowed to live in Jordan or any part of the Palestinian authority while 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian.

  • Ron Grant

    "..1,500,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel seem to , strangely ,prefer the "genocidal,nazi ,apparthied oppression" of israeli rule "

    Contrary to popular perception,Palestinians (living in Israel) are not stupid,they know a good thing when they see it.But we are not talking of the 1,500,000 Palestinians who have their birthright ,dignity and economic stability intact.We are talking about the millions of Palestinians who are innocent victims of Jewish occupation, oppression and ethnic cleansing.Whenever an oppressed people have the choice they chose freedom from their oppressor.What they do with that freedom is another matter and not always satisfactory.While the Palestinians living within the racist borders of the Zionist state have their birthrights,etc. as long as their brothers and sisters are denied this same right they will not be satisfied.None of us should.Jew ,Gentile,Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim,Agnostic nor Atheist.We should all aim to be Righteous Gentiles,Righteous Muslims,etc.We really are more alike then different.Muchiboy

    "no Jew is allowed to live in Jordan or any part of the Palestinian authority while 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian."

    We should be talking about the time, still within living memory, when Jews were 20% or less the population of Palestine.

    • solemnman

      As there are no Jews left ,or allowed ,in Judea and Sumaria( which is now called Jordan),Gaza and the Fatah controlled west bank and there are 1,500,000 Palestinians with all the rights of citizenship in Israel -who do you think is practicing aparthied?
      The Arab world attacked the fledgling state of Israel with the declared intention (which still prevails today)of making the Mediterranean Sea red with Jewish blood.Their declared intention to commit genocide was attempted in 48..Before the intifada the Palestinians flourished, as never before in their history ,under Israeli rule and their population grew exponentially.

  • Tommo2

    The West has been supplying aid to Palestine for over 60-years. Palestinians are still categorised as refugees and consequently receive all manner of aid from America and Europe. When will this albatross remove itself from around our necks and start doing something for themselves. To stop buying weapons from Iran and North Korea with which to hit Israel would be a start. To begin rebuilding their country, you would think, would be a priority for themselves and their children. As Winston Churchill remarked, Muslims like living in squalor – that way their aid continues for ever.

  • Niall Ginty

    Much of the venomous poison directed at Israel comes from the continuing support of left wing, self hating Westerners and guilt ridden Jews, who regard hard won freedom and peaceful coexistence as something that is an inherently unclean. These people see no merit in any proposal that fails to establish the "right" of Palestinians to override the right of Israeli citizens to enjoy the same freedoms we in the West take for granted. Is it any wonder that terrorist groups like Hamas and others can turn logic on its head without censure from the West.

  • TheAZCowBoy

    Sick Jew muthafuckers. Your posts reveal just how fucked up you paranoid schizophrenic are as the worlds foremost parasites.

    Pssst, remember its not just the Palestnians that hate your guts – especially after the Free Palestine flotilla massacres (Gaza/Lebanese massacres included).

    Tombstone, AZ.

    BTW: Inform your ignoramous poster that the animals at the Gaza City zoo were killed by the bastard IDF's artillery (white phosphorus) shellings.

    • Ric

      Reckon you belong in one of the pens in Gaza Zoo judging by your brain power! PMSL

  • bpaolucci

    Keep in mind that the people from all 3 religions lived side by side in peace and as good neighbors to each other before the creation of the Jewish State of Israel. Arabs will not be satisfied until there is no Jewish State no matter what peace offerings are made. At this point in time, we can say that Arabs won't be satisfied until there is no America either. And it looks like Obama agrees with destroying both Israel and America.