Juan Cole’s Map of Lies

Steven Plaut is a native Philadelphian who teaches business finance and economics at the University of Haifa in Israel.  He holds a PhD in economics from Princeton.  He is author of the David Horowitz Freedom Center booklets about the Hamas  and Jewish Enablers of the War against Israel.


Pages: 1 2

Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History.  He claims to be a Middle East historian and expert.  He has served as the president of the “Middle East Studies Association.”  At least one scholar has accused him of being personally responsible for the intellectual bankruptcy plaguing Middle East studies.  Cole is an anti-Israel and anti-American extremist, and his extremism prevented him from getting a job offer from Yale a few years back.  He is probably best known for his professing beliefs in grand Jewish conspiracies.  He tosses around the term “Zionofascists” when he means “Jews.”  He led the pro-Saddam lobby and is a Hamas apologist.  He loves to spread anti-Jewish blood libels.  He is bosom buddies with Neo-Nazi anti-Semitic conspiracist nuts, like Justin Raimondo (who claims the Jews and not al-Qaeda were behind the 9-11 attacks on the US).

For those who think that the fascist method of The Big Lie must be restricted to slogans or phrases, you should never underestimate the value of a false map. Perhaps the world title for telling a Big Lie by means of a map, or rather a pseudo-map, now belongs to the pseudo-academic Cole, regarding “Palestinian lands.”  He has decided that lands owned by the British imperial mandatory governing in control of “Palestine” between the world wars were “Palestinian land.”  Those are the “Palestinian lands” he claims were stolen by Israel.  Now, as it turns out, those were “Palestinian lands” only in the sense that they were state land owned by the British “Palestine” mandatory government.  They were by and large not lands owned by “Palestinian” Arabs.  And they were by and large completely empty.

Those were the lands taken over by Israel when it became independent that Cole maps as “Palestinian lands.”  Today Juan Cole is the daddy of the world’s most absurd propaganda pseudo-map, which purports to tell the history of “Palestine.”  The map can be viewed here and is entitled “Palestinian Loss of Land 1946 to 2000.”  It consists of four frames.

The first frame is labeled “Palestinian and Jewish Land 1946.”  It shows “Palestinian land” in green comprising more than 90% of “Palestine” (defined as the area later forming Israel, the West Bank and Gaza).  Most of this “Palestinian” land was “Palestinian” only in the sense that it was public land owned by the British mandatory government of “Palestine.”

The second frame shows the UN partition plan 1947, under which roughly equal slices of land in Mandatory Palestine were assigned to a proposed Jewish state and a proposed Palestinian Arab state.  Unwittingly, the map prepared by Cole makes the Israeli case.  Readers might want to ask of Cole and his friends embarrassing questions, such as why that Arab Palestinian state never arose.  After all, the Jews accepted the compromise proposal.  The answer that Cole does not want you to know is that the Arab states invaded the territory militarily and gobbled up most of the what had been earmarked for a Palestinian state.  Readers might also wonder how come half the segment of Western Palestine that had been reserved for the Jews after Transjordan had been truncated from Palestine was being offered to the Arabs.

In the same map, what are shown in Cole’s second frame as “Palestinian lands” were also by and large public lands controlled by the British Mandatory government and not lands owned by “Palestinian” Arabs.  The third frame shows Israel’s borders after Independence and the last frame shows Israel’s borders today together, again with lands in the West Bank and Gaza defined by Cole as “Palestinian lands.”

The Big Lie is most visibly and viciously concentrated in Cole’s first frame.  After World War I, all of Western Palestine was governed by Britain under a Mandate granted to it by the League of Nations.  Its mandate was to develop the area as a Jewish homeland.  The eastern part of Palestine was truncated and illegally turned by Britain into the independent Arab kingdom of Transjordan.  The rump segment of Palestine was reserved for the Jews.  None of this was earmarked for creation of yet another Arab state.  The bulk of land within the Palestinian Mandate was state-owned land, governed by the British Mandatory government.  It had also been state-owned land previously under the Ottoman imperial government, before Britain liberated “Palestine” from the Turks.  [Before World War I, land in Palestine was owned by the Ottoman state and a feudalistic class of absentee landlords.  The few “Palestinian” Arabs who lived in the country at the time seldom owned any land.  They farmed it as sharecroppers.]

The Cole map of “Palestinian lands” gives the impression that before Israel’s creation 90% of the land of Palestinian was owned by “Palestinian” Arabs.  In reality, almost none of it was.  It was mainly land owned by feudal aristocrats and by the imperial government.  Most of it was empty.  When the Zionist migrations began, the Jews started buying up lands from their feudal landlords, who were happy to turn a quick profit.  Almost no “Palestinian” Arabs were forced off those lands as the ownership changed and the Jewish immigrants arrived.  The anti-Israel Lobby, which loves to accuse the Zionists of “colonialism,” is invited to find any other case in human history in which the “colonialists” came and paid in full at (and often well above) market prices for the lands they were “colonizing.”

As Jewish capital flowed into the country, bringing with it rising wages, health and educational standards, Arabs from neighboring countries, mainly from Lebanon and Syria, flowed in to “Palestine” to take advantage of the progress.  Those Arabs never saw themselves as “Palestinians” until the fabrication of a mythical “Palestinian people” became the Arab propaganda line after 1967.  The “Palestinians” were then assigned the same role of the German Sudetens in the late 1930s, pretending to be oppressed “victims” whose liberation required annihilation of their democratic “oppressors,” or so their genocidal totalitarian patrons insisted.

The large increase in Jewish land ownership between the late 1800s and 1948 was due to this process of land acquisition by means of Zionist purchases.  Swaths of lands were also purchased by Jews in Syria and Transjordan.  They were later stolen by the respective Arab governments, a little matter about which the “anti-apartheid” poseurs and Hillary Clinton have never had much to say.  The bulk of the land in Western “Palestine,” including almost the entire Negev in Israel’s south, was state-owned during the British mandatory period.  If Cole and Sullivan had an ounce of integrity, they would have identified public lands as precisely that.

Then to make matters worse, the pseudo-map and its sponsors paint all of Israel and large swaths of the West Bank and Gaza as “Jewish lands.”  Even when they are owned by Arabs.

Let us note that what Cole and Sullivan call “Jewish lands” or “Israeli lands” include not only private lands owned by Arabs but also public lands serving Israeli Jews and Arabs in common.  Are highways and parks used by all Israelis “Jewish lands?”   Evidently Cole thinks so.  Are lands upon which Arab schools, mosques, libraries and sports stadiums sit “Israeli lands?”  Maybe Cole has never met an Arab who uses a park.

In addition, the bulk of land in Israel is publicly owned even today.  As an economist I oppose this anachronistic “socialist ownership.”   These holdings include public lands that are used by all Israelis, Arabs and Jews.  Of privately-owned land, Israeli Arabs own more of it than their share in the Israeli population!

Pages: 1 2

  • http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com Elder of Ziyon

    I had written about this very topic recently, and created a much more accurate map showing all the land Israel has given up for a chance of peace: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/03/map-that

  • Chezwick_Mac

    It wasn't Israel that rejected the partition plan of 1947. The Arabs opted for war…and they lost. To the victor goes the spoils.

    It wasn't Israel that rejected the 1948-67 borders. The Arabs opted for war again…and they lost again. To the victor goes the spoils.

    We all have to live with the consequences of our choices. Why should the Palestinians be any different?

    • truthin

      Well, you admitted it: It's not about about 'right', but 'might'. Rather Machiavellian, aren't we?

      • Chezwick_Mac

        Machiavellian, no. Realistic is what I am. As for "might vs right", Israel had every right and even obligation to fight for its life in the face of a murderous enemy uninterested in compromise and determined to drive the Jews into the sea.

  • http://www.mahdiwatch.org Occidental Jihadist

    One thing no researcher has ever examined, to my knowledge, is why Cole–a self-professed Baha'i–is such an apologist for radical, violent Islam and Muslims. One would think a member of a religion that is savagely persecuted by the Islamic Republic of Iran (and generally deemed heretical by Sunnis) would be less of a dhimmi.

    • truthin

      On the contrary, if you look at the 'scholar' that Plaut tells us critiqued Cole for the decline of Middle Eastern studies, it's none other than Alexander Joffe, head of Campus Watch!! LOL LOL So much for objectivity!! LOL LOL

    • Jill

      He gets money from the Saudis. Most "apologists" for Islam are paid henchmen.

      Google Fenton Communications and demonisation of Israel for an interesting case study.

  • amos

    Cole is a wiccan and not a Bahai!

  • StephenD

    Just curious…does anyone know if these facts are taught in American Schools…ever? Seems to me we serve up wide mouth bass eager to bite onto any lie fed them as facts from our schools. This provides a bevy and replenishment of "Useful Idiots." to continue with the lies until they are no longer needed. Logic would say we ought to, for our own good, provide facts to our young and let them decide where they stand. In this case, the facts speak for themselves, Israel has already given up too much in hope of a peaceful coexistence that will never be.

  • Henry James

    [Then we have parts of the Gaza Strip being shown on the Cole map as “Israeli land.” Never mind that there is not a single Israeli anywhere in the Gaza Strip, ever since Israel – somewhat foolishly – turned the entire area over to the Hamas years ago.]

    The last map by Cole is from 2000 while Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005. So, it rightly shows settlements that are now gone.

    • amos

      Well, maybe, but Cole ran it in 2010

    • ajnn

      The irony is that 2005 is the 100th anniversary of the 'Gaza Lynchings' when Gaza became Arab by killing all of the jews; there were no arabs living in Gaza in 1905.

  • stern

    Outstanding article. Thanks for so many great facts that I will save in my Israel Stuff file. Of course, you do realize that you are impinging on Cole's right to free speech by pointing out facts.

    • Jill

      Actually, since Cole is subsidised by Saudis etc, his speecgh is not free, it's very very expensive. ;)
      Hahahahahahahahhahhaha!

  • Taylor Webb

    A few points that ought to be obvious but apparently aren't:
    1) The British Mandate of Palestine was an imperial project. These lands "belonged" to them in the same sense that the Indian subcontinent did, both having been acquired by theft. If you think that this translates to rightful ownership, then your views on East Jerusalem and the West Bank make perfect sense.
    2) @Chezwick_Mac "To the victor goes the spoils." You should know that this medieval standard of international justice goes against every tenet of contemporary international law. The unacceptability of acquiring territory by war has been a fundamental premise of international law since it's inception following the second world war. Note, this has absolutely nothing to do with who the aggressor is.

    Your attempts to associate Professor Cole's work with fascism, anti-semitism and terrorism without making a single substantive challenge to his work are really quite desperate. If you have a serious challenge to his scholarship, it should be easy enough to make your case without the infantile references to Mr. bin Laden or jihadists.

    • stern

      That makes wonderful sense, Taylor Webb. So country 1 can attack country 2 and lose. In the process, country 1 loses land as well. By your reading of international law, country 2 has to give back everything. Which means that there's really no reason whatsoever for country 1 to refrain from attacking, because even if it loses, it cannot lose.

      The sheer idiocy of this is irrelevant though, in the case of Israel and the so-called Palestinians, because there never was a country called "Palestine" – and, in fact, up until 1948, if you called someone a "Palestinian", you were understood to be referring to Jews.

      In 1948, Jordan illegally occupied what is now referred to as the West Bank. In the process, they ethnically cleansed every last Jew out of areas like the Jewish Quarter of old city of Jerusalem (it was called the Jewish Quarter for the most obvious of reasons – it was full of Jews!!!) and the Gush Etzion bloc. Those who didn't escape were slaughtered – men, women and children.

      For the next 19 years, not a single Jew was permitted into those areas, despite the fact that Jews had lived there for 3,000 years.

      So. The land never belonged to anyone, under international law, other than the Ottomans and then the British (as Professor Plaut points out). Secondly, while it was occupied by the Jordanians, nobody every thought to call for a "Palestinian" state. Thirdly, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, thinking that Egypt and Syria were winning, making it arguable under my first points that Jordan should lose that land.

      For more on the actual international law, do yourself a favour and google Eugene Rostow.

      Quite simply, there is no argument in the world that would give that land legally to anyone but the people who live there. And some of those people are Jewish. Yet Mahmoud Abbas has made it perfectly clear that any new Palestinian state would not tolerate a single Jewish citizen.

      Are you really so sure this is what you want to argue for? And if you answer "yes" to that question, we all know what that makes you.

      • truthin

        Not true Stern, the word Palestine/Palestinian goes all the way back to Herodotus, and does not refer to a Jewish population. But of course you know this already, and are content to lie, lie, lie.

        • amos

          Guess what Bozo ! "Palestine" never referred to any Arab state or people either! It was a corruption of "Philistine"

          And guess who told us all about the Philistines!

        • JohnB

          You are jumping the gun, Palestine was indeed dubbed so by the Roman as a retaliation measure against rebel Jews. But indeed before 1948 the word Palestinian was an homonym to a Jew.

          Although Arabs where sometimes called 'Palestinian Arabs' they resented it. And there are many articles of newspaper from before 48 of Arab leaders calling to shun anything Palestinian (=Jewish).

          And last clarification
          Palestine is not a land or a country, but a region, indeed part of that region is in Jordan.

    • Chezwick_Mac

      My response to your point #2…

      Countless peoples have waged war and won independence (thus, "acquiring territory") since WWII. Other examples would be India's occupation of Kashmir and Morocco's occupation of the Western Sahara. In the latter two cases, the status of the occupied territories was never formally established. The same could be said of the West Bank and Gaza.

      • truthin

        Yea, and how's that going in Kashmir for India? A virtual nuclear war, in the 90s. Get a freakin' grip, and stop that Machiavellian stuff.

        • Chezwick_Mac

          "Gat a feakin grip"???

          I suppose you believe that if Israel withdraws from the West Bank in its entirety, there will be everlasting peace in the Middle East.

          Get a freakin grip!

        • JohnD

          I suppose per your text books there was peace in the middle east before evil Israel decided to take some more land from Egypt and Jordan?

          Just a moment where is Free Republic of Palestine in my argument ?

    • MixMChess

      In response to point 1, recall that most of the land to build Israel was legally purchased by Zionists from willing Arab landowners, often for exorbitant prices. For example, "of the 463,000 acres that Jews owned in 1947, they had bought 387,500 from Arabs (84%), 30,000 acres from various churches and received only 45,000 from the British Mandate authorities."

      Most of the land that Israel purchased and acquired was vacant ant tenant-free. Very few Arab landowners were uprooted as a result of the Zionist purchases, and even then they were uprooted mostly due to economic forces that had nothing to do with the Zionists.

      Additionally, other state land acquired/allotted by the Mandate government was vacant and devoid of life. For example, the Negev, which makes up roughly 50% of the land in "Israel-proper" was (and in many ways still is) an inhospitable desert at the time of partition in 1947.

      • truthin

        That doesn't seem to account for the vast number of refugees, now does it? What about them?

        • amos

          You must be referring to the vast number of Jewish refugees expelled by the Arab fascist states.

          Arab refugees? Balls! They are like the German refugees expelled by Czechoslovakia and Poland!

        • MixMChess

          I was referring only to the time of partition (1947) and before. The refugee problem wasn't until 1948, and that was a result of over 8 Arab armies invading Israel. Had the Arabs accepted a Jewish state there would have never been a refugee problem. But of course, you already knew that didn't you?

    • Jill

      Y0ur basic mistake is to call Cole a scholar, rather than a paid propaganda hack.

      If you have a faulty premise, subsequent assertions fail.

      You fail.

  • timespost

    The remedy is to learn and spread the true historical facts.
    I advise all to read and share this: http://timespost.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/what-is

  • Supreme_Galooty

    Ignorance is the mother's milk of Islam, for without it the withering of that benighted cult of losers would be a boon to world peace. Indeed, Islam is notable not for its virtues, but rather for its vices. Greed, envy, hidden and rampant sexual lust, adoration of death by violence are just a few attributes shared by millions of those jolly Musselmen. Their very existence on this planet presents a palpable danger to all men of good will.

  • Dispozovdaburka

    Unfortuately, there are many who feel as Juan Cole does.
    Although I don't appreciate when our representatives from the US are presented with
    announcements of "new building in Israel,"(while we are making "diplomatic visits.")
    It kind of underminds the basic beliefs that the american public has or holds of the"concept" of prospects of peace in the middle east region. As we are pouring our future economy into unqualified debt to resolve issues that appear to be unresolvable (due to the conciousness of Islam) publicly it looks bad on the part of Israel. This kind of public display ""illuminates or alienates much of the US public opinion, although we share the conciousness of Israel .
    It kind of throws water onto the fire of support.

  • stern

    Dispoetc, did you know that at the very time when your Vice President visited Israel, when Israel committed that sin you consider so terrible, passing just one phase in a 17-stage process of getting approval to build in the country's capital city – at that very same time, the Palestinians, Israel's supposed peace partners, were inaugurating a public square. Now here's the interesting part.

    With much celebration, the Palestinians named that square after the woman terrorist responsible for the worst murder of Israelis in history – 38 people, including an American woman photographer and 13 children. Yes, 13 children!

    Compare those two things. Israel talks about building homes (doesn't lay a single brick – just talks about it) and you and the world media go nuts about the insult to Biden. The Palestinians glorify a horrible murderer and you don't even comment – most likely because you didn't even know about it. After all, the world media pretty much ignored that event.

    Don't you think that "kind of public display" is tasteless, to say the least? Don't you think that kind of public display should affect the way you feel about what's happening in the Middle East?

  • Raymond in DC

    The fact that U of Michigan keeps Cole on staff, brought in anti-Israel Neve Gordon to teach their Arab-Israeli conflict course (which I helped teach some decades back), and tolerates myriad pro-Palestinian activities on campus is the reason I no longer contribute as an alum.

    By all historic precedents and the generally established rules of war – not to mention the legal agreements of San Remo and the Mandate of 1922 – Israel has more legal claim to the lands west of the Jordan than anyone. But apparently since Jews are involved, and their antagonists have friends who have oil, different rules seem to apply.

  • amos

    If lands do not belong to imperial conquerers, as Taylor Webb whines, what on earth justification could there ever have been for the Arab imperial conquerers invading and conquering them from the indigenous peoples. The Arabs are NOT native to "Palestine" and Juan Cole is NOT a scholar of any sort, but rather a hate propagandist!

    • MixMChess

      You re exactly correct! Besides the Jews, there was never a stable indigenous population, unified by a common culture. Foreigners constantly emigrated and immigrated from the Holy Land because Muslim rulers wanted to populate it, because it was the holy land and drew the religious, and because of the shortage of labor. Jews, however, maintained a continuous presence for over 3,000 years according to archeological and historical evidence.

  • baalzebub

    What do you call a fascist anti-Semite who supports jihad and has a limp wrist?

    Answer: Andrew Sullivan

  • Taylor Webb

    I'm relatively confident that Amos can readily distinguish between conquest made many centuries ago and an imperial project which is literally within the memory of living individuals, expelled from their homes at gunpoint. In Amos's sense, no one is "native" to Palestine, or anywhere else except for Southwestern Africa for that matter. I'm certain that Amos can grasp that colonialism is immoral, and that military conquest of historic Palestine does not give the British the rightful ability to dole out the territory as it sees fit.

    • MixMChess

      "I'm relatively confident that Amos can readily distinguish between conquest made many centuries ago and an imperial project which is literally within the memory of living individuals, expelled from their homes at gunpoint."

      I'm relatively confident that you have absolutely know knowledge of the basic facts surrounding the Israeli/Arab conflict. Recall, it was the Israelis who begged the Arabs to stay in their homes and communities and become equal citizens in the new Israeli state. The majority of Palestinians fled before full-scale hostilities began and without even seeing an Israeli soldier. They did so at the prompting of the Arab Governments who promised a "quick victory" and to push the Jews into the sea. Israeli troops encouraged or forced only a tiny percentage of Arabs to leave and this was due to the exigencies of the war itself – even anti-Israel historian Benny Morris (who conveniently, is most often cited for this claim) reached this conclusion. Nice try though.

    • MixMChess

      "In Amos's sense, no one is "native" to Palestine, or anywhere else except for Southwestern Africa for that matter."

      Except for the Jews, there was never a stable indigenous population, unified by a common culture. Foreigners constantly emigrated and immigrated from the Holy Land because Muslim rulers wanted to populate it, because it was the holy land and drew the religious, and because of the shortage of labor.

      The Jews, on the other hand, maintained a continuous presence for over 3,000 years according to archeological and historical evidence. Jews had been migrating to the Holy Land for two millennia (since the Roman expulsion). The Zionists of the 19th and 20th centuries were an extension of this age-old pattern.

    • MixMChess

      "I'm certain that Amos can grasp that colonialism is immoral, and that military conquest of historic Palestine does not give the British the rightful ability to dole out the territory as it sees fit."

      Colonialism as practiced by the British was in most cases immoral. That stated, under international law they had a perfected legal right to the territory, having defeated the Ottoman Turks in WWI. Of course, Israel wasn't built on land handed over from the British. Israel was built on land legally purchased from willing Arab landowners, often for exorbitant prices. For example, "of the 463,000 acres that Jews owned in 1947, they had bought 387,500 from Arabs (84%), 30,000 acres from various churches and received only 45,000 from the British Mandate authorities."

      Most of the land that Israel purchased and acquired was vacant ant tenant-free. Very few Arab landowners were uprooted as a result of the Zionist purchases, and even then they were uprooted mostly due to economic forces that had nothing to do with the Zionists.

      Additionally, other state land acquired/allotted by the Mandate government was vacant and devoid of life. For example, the Negev, which makes up roughly 50% of the land in "Israel-proper" was (and in many ways still is) an inhospitable desert at the time of partition in 1947. Thus, no Arab rights were ever usurped.

    • Ex-Ottoman

      Ooops! Nice argument, pal. Only problem is that the very same argument applies to: Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and most every other arab country, all of which were created by the French and English from the spoils of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the legal or illegal status that you try to assign to Israel applies to every other crappy arab country as well. Had you thought about it? Of course not! Only Israel needs to stand the scrutiny and double standard of every ignorant like yourself.

  • Rich Rostrom

    This set of maps lies twice. The first map is a lie, because prior to 1948, Arabs did not have sovereign power over any part of the Mandate; it was all ruled by Britain.

    The other lie is a lie by omission: there is no map showing the situation from 1967 to 1993, when again Arabs did not have sovereign power over any part of the former Mandate; it was all ruled by Israel. The final map should be labeled 1993-2010, showing the reversion of substantial parts of the territory to Arab rule.

    But that would spoil the narrative.

    Another set of maps might show ownership of land in the territory. It would need to show three (or perhaps four) shades: land owned by Jews, land owned by Arabs, and land owned by state agencies. (The fourth shade would be needed to distinguish between land owned by Israeli state agencies and land owned by Arab state agencies, i.e. much of the West Bank in 1948-1967.)

    This map set would show continuous “Jewish expansion”, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near as impressive.

  • Gorgonzola

    It must induce excruciating back pain, these contortions used to justify expropriating Palestinian land.

    • MixMChess

      I suppose the true facts about Israel's founding must give you headaches, its probably too much to fit into your simplistic and puny brain, huh?

  • baalzebub

    End the illegal Palestinian occupation of Jewish lands!

  • baalzebub

    When Taylor Webb speaks about refugees being expelled from their homes at gun point in modern times, was he referring the million Jews expelled from their homes in Arab countries after 1948? Surely he was not referring to the Palestinians who ran away to escape the war zones in the battles launched by Arabs seeking to annihilate the Jews of Israel and conduct a second Shoah!!

  • amos

    By the way, just for the record, the last time in history that an Arab state of Palestine existed was precisely never!

  • moshesharon

    One of the major weapons in this propaganda war against Israel is the “Remember these Children” website which compares the numbers of Arab children who have been killed in the conflicts to the number of Jewish children murdered by terrorists. The Arab list totals 1,437 since 2000 and the Jewish list totals 130. Not withstanding that such reporting is unsubstantiated, After visiting the site, I noticed that according to this report, most of the Israeli children were murdered in drive by shootings and human bombs exploding themselves in restaurants, buses and markets. In other words, the Arab terrorists targeted those children and murdered them in cold blood. For all of the Arab children, on the other hand, the site identifies the causes of death as gun shot wounds or explosions during the firefights with Arab Hamas fighters. What were their children doing in the middle of a war zone? That is clear and convincing evidence that the Hamas thugs where using the local children as human shields. Soldiers are trained to return fire when fired upon. The bushwhacking urban guerrillas who fire at enemy troops from a neighborhood full of children are the ones causing the deaths of those children. More at http:moshesharon.worpress.com

    • clockwise

      The Palestinians did not ask to be visited by the Zionist terrorists that blow up hotels and the like. The war zone was brought to them for the sake of ethnic cleansing.

  • Juan Cole

    I am such a stupid little fraud. Can anyone teach me how to urinate while standing up?

  • Guru John

    The Lord God of Abraham who calls himself "I Am,I Am", gave The Hebrew Nation the promised land we now call Israel. Maybe the unrightious should stop interfering.