Rashid Khalidi’s False Narrative of Israeli History

gh34Palestinian-American Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi addressed America’s role in the Arab-Israeli peace process on April 17, 2014, at Washington, DC’s Jerusalem Fund, a pro-Palestinian think tank.  Describing Israel’s “entirely false narrative” into which “we have all been brainwashed,” Khalidi revealed his own myopia before an audience of about forty mostly likeminded, middle-aged people.

John Halaka’s “Portraits of Denial and Despair” photo exhibit currently displayed in Jerusalem Fund hallways set a worrying ambience for Khalidi.  Amidst photo captions damning an Israeli “settler colonial state,” one photo montage shows Yasser Arafat’s former press secretary, Raeda Taha.  She grew up “in the shadow of a martyr,” a caption declares, a “symbol of the national struggle,” namely her pictured terrorist father Ali Taha, “killed in a hijacking operation he commanded.”

Khalidi discussed how the United States has “systematically failed” to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace given “structural reasons.”  “Corrupt terms” such as “honest broker” expressed by Secretaries of State James Baker and Condoleezza Rice enabled America’s “myth” as a “disinterested mediatory.”  Rather, “continuing complicity” and “virtually identity of views” with Israel since 1975 make America sometimes “more Israeli than the Israelis.”  “Ceaseless colonization” of East Jerusalem and the West Bank has actually “made this conflict worse” despite 1991 Madrid Conference American assurances of no “prejudicial” actions during peace negotiations.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s current negotiations continue America’s “pusillanimous role” amidst “widespread skepticism.”  The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) “position of weakness” faces Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “uncompromising stand,” including Israel’s “brand new, never before revealed demand” for Jewish state recognition.  Does this mean in Israel “everybody has to sing HaTikvah,” the national anthem, Khalidi joked.

Such biases “driven by domestic pressure” from the “Israel lobby” became “intense” during President Barack Obama’s “humiliating retreat” from a supposedly longstanding policy on ultimate 1967-based Israeli borders.  Israel, however, must otherwise “conform to American wishes,” such as during the Iran nuclear agreement.  Here the “United States did exactly how it pleased.”

Middle East arms deals also occur without Israeli consent, often involving Saudi Arabia’s “stealth lobby” operating in conjunction with American oil interests.  Yet “in fact no contradiction” exists between American relationships with Israel and Gulf monarchies that, like all Arab autocracies, ignore local popular support for the Palestinian cause.  “Some of them…are on Israel’s side,” Khalidi judged.

Israeli has meanwhile created a “bastardized one-state solution,” entailing Palestinian statehood’s “indefinite deferral” under the Oslo Accords’ “historic mistake.”  Khalidi’s one-state solution would recognize “two peoples,” in contrast to some “Palestinian one-staters” who would tolerate merely a “few Jews.”  PA corruption in Ramallah’s “boomtown” and “destructive” divisions with the equally corrupt Hamas-run Gaza, though, remain obstacles.

The Palestinians’ “entirely asymmetrical” conflict with a powerful, American-backed Israel belies a “rough equality” of “two victimized, tragic peoples.”  Stateless since 1918, Palestinians have undergone a “century-long odyssey.”  The 1947 United Nations partition plan foresaw a Jewish state, but “strangled in its cradle” a Palestinian state about which “no one gave a damn.”  As refugees, most Palestinians “no longer live in historic Palestine.”

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement’s “considerable economic impact” in Europe offered Khalidi a ray of hope.  Israel’s greatest threat “used to be Iran; now it is” BDS, an addition to “non-violent resistance” or “other means.”  BDS also disrupts Israel’s “discursive hegemony” such that New York Times’ “sclerotic coverage” of Israel no longer interests the youth.  Thus “how can one not endorse the BDS movement?”

Khalidi’s bias contains numerous distortions.  Israel’s “ceaseless colonization” includes historically Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria such as Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter and Wailing Wall.  This as well as Israeli security concerns led President George W. Bush to recognize that Israel would retain certain territories won in 1967, an understanding that has largely restricted post-Oslo Accords settlement building to such territories.  Obama’s suggestion that Israel accept 1967 lines as a negotiation starting point, by contrast, was hardly uncontroversial.

Khalidi hardly discussed, meanwhile, Israel’s Gaza withdrawal, one of several Israeli peace moves, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s 2000 two-state proposal, under Khalidi’s Oslo Accords “historic mistake.”  Alternatively, recognizing Israel as a fundamentally “Jewish state” with some minorities is also hardly extraordinary.  Bush so defined Israel in an understanding going back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration supporting a “national home for the Jewish people.”

Khalidi equally distorts history, beginning with an asserted Palestinian statelessness since 1918.  No independent Palestine has ever existed within the territory now claimed by Palestinians, an area historically under other regimes such as the Ottoman Empire.  Khalidi’s assessment of the 1947 partition plan is particularly baffling.  New-born Israel fought for survival against Arab states with no interest in an independent Palestine, as shown by subsequent Jordanian and Egyptian occupations.

Khalidi’s assertion that an “Israel lobby” controls American Israel policy does not comport with his concession of widespread American neglect of Israeli interests.  Perhaps the United States (along with some Arab regimes) actually shares interests with an Israeli ally respecting the Palestinians?  Who defines an “honest broker,” anyway, the Palestinians or the Israelis?

The former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Khalidi thus fully displayed ongoing Palestinian intransigence towards an Israel now over 60 years old.  For Khalidi, Israeli colonialism has dispossessed a non-existent “historic Palestine” in the name of an illegitimate Jewish state.  Hence Khalidi’s rejection of any past peace proposal such as the Oslo Accords and acquiescence in Palestinian terrorism, such as that of a genocidal Hamas, whose past division with the PA Khalidi bemoaned.  No wonder the “peace process” fails.

This essay was written for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Larry Larkin

    The obamessiah is on record as having formed his views and opinions of the Middle East and the Israeli situation from his association with Khalidi.
    In other words, his whole approach to Israel is that of a member of the PLO, for whom Khalidi was spokesterrorist in Lebanon before being allowed (for some unknown reason) into the US and US academia.
    It’s also why he’s (at the very least) a big supporter of the PLO’s parent organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Lanna

    I remember reading an article from 1998 showing Rashid listening reverently to anti-Israel theorist Edward Said. Obama sat idly by as speakers at an event in 2003 celebrating Rashid Khalidi a former PLO public relations operative. The President also said to other leaders, (“I have to deal with him every day, referring to Benjamin Netanyahu.”)

    • BagLady

      So what? Would you like to deal with the intransigent Zionist Netanyahu on a daily basis? I know I wouldn’t.

      • Ken Kelso

        http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/02/18/palestinian-arabs-the-people-who-always-refuse-a-state/
        Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
        Lee S. Bender and Jerome R. Verlin
        FEBRUARY 18, 2014

        There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. ‎

        Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring ‎Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.

        Actually, there has been a Palestinian Arab state in the region since 1921, located in the eastern 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate designated for a Jewish National Home: ‎Jordan. Even today, more than two-thirds of the people of Jordan are Palestinian Arabs. The offers of another Palestinian Arab state (which would be the 23rd Arab state) in the remaining western portion of the Palestine Mandate date back to the 1937 Peel Commission. That began a consistent pattern of rejected offers through to the present: 1947 UN Partition Plan, 1967 at Khartoum, 2000 at Camp David, 2001 at Taba, the 2008 Olmert Plan. The current Kerry-led negotiations also appear to be heading in that direction. Yet the Palestinian Arabs still adamantly reject the “two state solution” of an “Arab State” and “Jewish State” referenced in the 1947 UN partition resolution.

        So it is instructive to ask, what do the Palestinian Arabs really want? If we would only listen to what they persistently say and read their charters, we would understand: the eradication of ‎Israel through armed struggle, replacing the Jewish state with a Palestinian Arab state. Just read the charters of the Palestinian Authority, PLO, Fatah, and Hamas, and it is laid out in straightforward unambiguous terms. It really is no wonder they say “no” to a state if it also means that they have to recognize the tiny Jewish state alongside it. There are already 22 Arab states with a population of 400 million and land mass 625 times that of Israel, versus 6.2 million Jews in a sliver of land the size of New Jersey.

        We have seen a preview of what their state will be like: ‎Gaza, which has become a terrorist launching pad for tens of thousands of rockets and missiles into Israel since Israel left and uprooted 8,000 citizens from their homes in 2005. It is a failed entity ruled by the corrupt, genocidal, terrorist entity Hamas, which steadfastly refuses to recognize Israel. A Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank/Judea-Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization, on the high ground overlooking the heart of Israel’s population centers from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, will only pose a more lethal danger to the safety and security of Israel. And the Jewish claim does not rest just on security, but on a continuous three-millennia presence in the land.

        The pathology of the Palestinian Arab movement, which is actually a part of the larger Arab war on Israel, is violent rejection. It is partly fueled by Islamic beliefs that any Jewish presence on the land is a crime against the Islamic “natural order of things,” the crime of a ‎dhimmi people, the Jews, having sovereignty in their midst.

        Yet Westerners fantasize and delude themselves that the Palestinian Arabs actually want to live in peace alongside ‎Israel. This was recently epitomized by Israel’s chief negotiator Tzipi Livni, who told Knesset members that they should “expect to be surprised” regarding Palestinian Authority willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. But her fairy-tale beliefs defy reality, and the bubble was burst immediately when PA negotiator Saeb Erekat reiterated yet again that the Palestinian Arabs would never accept Israel as a Jewish State.

        Sheikh Jabari, the strongman of ‎Hebron, put it concisely: “We can never recognize the Jewish state. I can’t. It goes against the Koran. Tel Aviv is Waqf [Muslim] holy land. I can’t recognize you de jure, but I also recognize that you’re not going anywhere. You’re here to stay.”

        Western intervention only makes things worse, and leads the PA to believe that it can maintain a culture of victimhood and pay no price for its maximalist, uncompromising beliefs. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Arab culture of incitement, terrorism, and resort to lawfare has only increased, in absolute violation of their commitments to teach and preach peace, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, confiscate weapons, and arrest terrorists. The PA has not kept those international commitments; so what gives ‎Israel and Western diplomats confidence that any future accords – which will presumably involve Israel relinquishing vital land areas necessary for its security – will be honored? In Arab-Muslim culture, agreements tend to be broken when one side gains the strength to overcome the other, i.e. hudna. In the Middle East, the current status is what peace actually looks like: no paper agreements. At best, a détente, where only force and power prevail and are respected. That is what has enabled Israel to miraculously survive as an oasis of hope, democracy, and freedom in the midst of Arab-Muslim dominated totalitarian states, military dictatorships, and theocracies.‎

        Israel ‎‎has no reliable “peace partner” in the Western sense, no matter how the mainstream media, EU, diplomats, and elites want to spin it. These apologists will always somehow find a way to rationalize and justify the Palestinian Arabs’ predictable resort to violence and in turn seek to delegitimize Israel for not making further concessions – regardless of whether it puts the Jewish State in deadly danger. The diplomatic process is not working. There must be far more onus on the PA to make true peace and prepare its own people for it. If and when Palestinian Arabs are ready, willing and able to say “yes,” Israel will be there – but not any sooner.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Khalidi sounds like your typical post modernist deconstructivist babbling fool who spools out nonsense that could just as easily been machine generated and means nothing.

  • StanleyT

    Great article demonstrates how being an anti-Zionist (read anti-Semite) requires one to abandon all pretence at logic or clear thinking.

    • BagLady

      Incorrect Stanley. You cannot state that being anti Zionist is anti Semitic. One is a political view, the other a genetic state.

      The illogic is on your part.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    The PLO is malevolent and authoritarian. Israel is a country in which there is respect for freedom and individual rights. Therefore anyone of any importance in the PLO, along with the PLO’s supporters, hate, fear, and seek to destroy Israel.
    Obama and company, including one of his shills, John Kerry, are socialists and nihilists who will do everything they can get away with to help the PLO achieve this goal.
    As long the current administration is in place in America, Israel must, in order to survive, go its own way.

  • Christopher Riddle

    When will somebody pretend that the”Daniel Ellsburg Tapes”are at The LA Slimes?In fact,what the LA Slimes is”Concealing”is an Obongo Khalidi Rashid”LOVE FEST”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Ken Kelso

    Great article Andrew showing the liar and Rejectionist Khalidi is.

  • Ken Kelso

    Martin Kramer rebukes all the lies of Khalidi.
    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/10/difference-between-real-historian-and.html
    The difference between a real historian and Rashid Khalidi
    October 11, 2011

    This post by Martin Kramer starkly shows the difference between how a real historian acts and how a propagandist poseur self-styled “historian” named Rashid Khalidi acts:

    Last fall, Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, offered his audiences an account of how Leon Uris came to write the book. In a speech at Brooklyn Law School, Khalidi made this claim:
    This carefully crafted propaganda was the work of seasoned professionals. People like someone you probably never heard of, a man named Edward Gottlieb, for example. He’s one of the founders of the modern public relations industry. There are books about him as a great advertiser.

    In order to sell the great Israeli state to the American public many, many decades ago, Gottlieb commissioned a successful, young novelist. A man who was a committed Zionist, a fellow with the name of Leon Uris. He funded him and sent him off to Israel to write a book. This book wasExodus: A Novel of Israel. Gottlieb’s gambit succeeded brilliantly. Exodus sold as many copies as Gone With the Wind, which up to that point was the greatest best-seller in U.S. history. Exodus was as good a melodrama and sold just as many copies.

    …Khalidi warned his Brooklyn audience that Gottlieb would be “someone you probably never heard of.” Quite right: I regard myself as reasonably informed about the history of American Zionism, and I had never heard of Edward Gottlieb. Khalidi claimed there were “books about him as a great advertiser,” so I did a search, but I couldn’t find one. When Gottlieb died in 1998, at the age of 88, no major newspaper ran an obituary. That seemed to me a rather scant trail for “the father of the American iteration of Zionism” and “the founder of public relations in the United States.”

    One reason for the thin record, I discovered, is that Edward Gottlieb wasn’t the founder or even one of the founders of American public relations….Gottlieb is likewise completely absent from works on American Zionism—there isn’t a single reference. Moreover, his name doesn’t appear in the two scholarly studies of Leon Uris: Matt Silver’s Our Exodus: Leon Uris and the Americanization of Israel’s Founding Story and Ira Nadel’s Leon Uris: Life of a Best Seller. I wrote to both scholars, asking them whether they had encountered the name of Edward Gottlieb in Uris’s personal papers, housed at the University of Texas and cited extensively in both studies. Silver wrote back that “I didn’t see anything about Edward Gottlieb” and Nadel answered that “I never came across G[ottlieb]‘s name.”

    …Khalidi always presents himself as a historian, so I figured he wouldn’t have concocted the Gottlieb story out of whole cloth. He must have had a source. As it happens, the Gottlieb claim figures in three books that are classics in the Israel-bashing canon.

    …Charlotte Klein, who handled the Israel account for Gottlieb, was unequivocal: Gottlieb didn’t commission Exodus, and the name of Leon Uris never came up in the Israel work of the firm.

    In sum, the Gottlieb “commission” never happened. Uris’s biographers dismiss it, Gottlieb’s most knowledgeable associate denies it, and no documents in Uris’s papers or Israeli archives testify to it. It originated as a boast by Gottlieb to another PR man, made almost thirty years after the (non-)fact. And given its origin, it’s precisely the sort of story a serious professional historian would never repeat as fact without first vetting it (as I did).

    Yet it persists in the echo chamber of anti-Israel literature, where it has been copied over and over. In Katheleen Christison’s book, it finally appeared under the imprimatur of a university press (California). In Khalidi’s lectures last fall, it acquired a baroque elaboration, in which Edward Gottlieb emerges as “the father of the American iteration of Zionism” and architect of “one of the greatest advertising triumphs of the twentieth century.” What is the myth’s appeal? Why is the truth about the genesis of Exodus so difficult to grasp? Why should Khalidi think the Gottlieb story is, in his coy phrase, “worth noting”?

    Because if you believe in Zionist mind-control, you must always assume the existence of a secret mover who (as Khalidi said) “you probably never heard of,” and who must be a professional expert in deception. This “seasoned” salesman conceives of Exodus as a “gambit” (Khalidi) or a “scheme” (Christison). There is no studio or publisher’s advance, only a “commission,” which qualifies the book as “propaganda”—an “advertising triumph.” In Khalidi’s Brooklyn Law School talk, he added that “the process of selling Israel didn’t stop with Gottlieb…. It has continued unabated since then.” It is Khalidi’s purpose to cast Exodus, like the case for Israel itself, as a “carefully crafted” sales job by Madison Avenue mad men. Through their mediation, Israel has hoodwinked America.

    In fact, the deception lies elsewhere. Exodus, novel and book, were universally understood to be works of fiction. In contrast, Rashid Khalidi claims to speak in the name of history—that is, carefully validated truth. “I’m a historian,” he has said. “What I can do best for the reader or audience is provide a background for which to see the present, not tell them about the present.” Again: “I’m a historian and I try not to speculate about the future.” And this: “I’m a historian, and I look at the way idealism has tended to operate, and it’s not a pretty picture.” And this one (which truly beggars belief): “I’m a historian, it’s not my job to attack or defend anybody.”Kramer is too modest to point out the obvious, so I will: Kramer, a real academic, has given us a perfect example of how historians should check facts. He went to extraordinary lengths to check out a story, and even when it seemed that he had the answer he went the extra mile to double- and triple-check his facts. He went to archives, emailed people who would know and interviewed relevant actors who are still alive.

    Khalidi, on the other hand, is a propagandist who pretends to be a historian. He does no original research, merely shuffling pieces of information he finds that conforms to his worldview and discarding that which doesn’t. I have exposed some of his recent lies here and I went into some detail on his dishonesty in my book review of his work The Iron Cage (parts 1 and 2.)

    It is worth reading the entire lengthy Kramer article just to appreciate the painstaking work that real historians and academics do to check facts – and to see, in contrast, how lazy and dishonest the Khalidis of the world are.

    • Ken Kelso

      The Palestinians have nothing to do with the name Palestine.
      The name Palestine is named after the Philistines, not the Palestinians or any Arab group.

      It was certainly not directed or bestowed to the Arabs in this area.
      The Philistines were from Crete in Europe and came to Israel 3000 years ago and were not Arabs or Muslims. Delilah and Goliath were Philistines. (Philistines died out.) Philistine is the name the Romans renamed Israel as a chagrin against the Jews.

      Yassir Arafat was not a Philistine, but an ARAB born in Egypt. Philistine originates from the Hebrew verb Palash, which means to invade. So the Arabs who started to call themselves Palestinians in the late 60′s are invaders and they want to create an Invadia state.
      There was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians.

      Tell us when did it ever belong to Palestinians? Answer Never. It was never a Pal land to begin with, so your question is invalid.The Palestinians never governed or controlled any land before 1993. To make it simple, please tell me one Palestinian President before 1993? Keep thinking.
      The Palestinians want a capital, which they never had, in a country that never existed.

      • BagLady

        Delilah and Goliath were Philistines. (Philistines died out.) Philistine
        is the name the Romans renamed Israel as a chagrin against the Jews.”

        I have read that rather glib statement before. Did they really die out, or is it just convenient to believe so?

  • Ken Kelso

    I remind people, the 1 state solution was tried by a Kurd named Saladin.
    Saladin won the wars but opposed a state for his people the Kurds, cause he wanted a 1 state solution with the Arabs, Turks and Iranians. How did that work out for the Kurds?

    Today the Arabs have 22 countries, Iran and Turkey are 2 large countries and the Kurds have nothing.

    There was a play written by a Kurdish writer a few years ago called “The Trial of Saladin.” In it Saladin is brought back from death to appear in a Kurdish court. Realising what the Arabs, Turks and Iranians did to his people, he apologises to the Kurdish nation and commits suicide knowing he was responsible for all the Kurdish suffering by opposing a Kurdish state.
    So i blame Saladin for all the Kurdish suffering.
    Everything bad that happened to the Kurds is cause he didn’t want a state for his people and wanted a 2 state solution for the Kurds.

  • Ken Kelso

    The talks have made no progress because the Palestinian Arabs refuse to accept the FACTS that Israel is a Jewish nation.
    99% of the Palestinian Arabs are not refugees, and the other 1% should have gotten on with their lives years ago, and the Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs expelled from Muslim lands did.

    The Palestinians want 2 Palestinian states and no Jewish state.
    They want a Palestinian state free of Jews and to flood Israel with millions of Arabs for the 2nd Pal state.

    Obama should know, Saying that is it time for the Palestinians to make concessions is the end of the peace talks. Because Palestinians and concessions don’t work together..

    The Palestinians will never experience a civilized culture or community as long as their corrupt, racist, religiously intolerant leaders and elders promote terrorism and hatred towards non-muslims.

  • Ken Kelso

    Israel has made many peace offers, proposals, gestures and opportunities, all of which have been rejected by the Arabs, since 1920. Let us examine why:

    1920, San Remo conference decisions, ejected

    1922, League of Nations decisions, rejected

    1937, Peel Commission proposal, rejected

    1947, UN General Assembly proposal, rejected

    1948, Israel’s stretched out hand for peace, rejected

    1967, Israel’s stretched out hand for peace, rejected

    1978, Begin/Saadat peace proposal, rejected

    1995, Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected

    2000, Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected

    2005, Sharon’s peace gesture, rejected

    2008, Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected

    2009 to 2013, Netanjahu’s invitation to peace talks, rejected

    2014, Obama/Kerry contour for peace, rejected

    The single common denominator of all the above rejections, spanning 94 years, has been the implicit and/or explicit requirement of the Arabs to accept the RIGHT to be, to exist of a sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people on a portion of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. And, since categorically the Arabs reject the Jews’s right to sovereignty on ANY parcel of land of the Jewish people’s homeland, hence the above rejections. This has been and continues to be the essence of the Arab Israeli conflict, its core. It is about time all knew and appreciated it.

    • BagLady

      Come on! Every single example you give is just proof of the total intransigence exhibited by both sides. Nothing has been offered nor conceded but much has been taken.

      No wonder Obama is tired of talking. Half a century of political diplomacy has become very tiresome to most outside listeners. When they wake up to yet another mini-war in Palestine, they switch over/off.

      • Ken Kelso

        http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.574759
        Don’t expect Abbas to sign anything
        So far, the Palestinian negotiating tactic has been to get concessions, then cut off talks and ‘start where we left off.’
        By Shlomo Avineri

        Feb. 18, 2014

        As prime minister, Ehud Olmert met 36 (or was it 37?) times with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and couldn’t reach an agreement with him. But that didn’t stop him from saying in a recent interview on Channel 2 that he’s certain Abbas is a partner for an accord.

        Olmert was prepared to go further than any other Israeli leader in meeting the Palestinians’ demands, including on the issues of Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and territorial exchanges; he offered to evacuate 70,000 settlers as well as make a humanitarian gesture allowing 5,000 Palestinian refugees (or their descendants) to return. This underscored his belief in the need for Israel to make a painful compromise, and given his own political past, his courage and determination was especially admirable.

        But what came out of all that? When Olmert proposed in dozens of meetings that Abbas sign a document containing the Israeli concessions, he refused. Olmert explains this by saying that Abbas did not say either yes or no. This is patently ridiculous: By refusing to sign, Abbas clearly said no.

        Evidently, Abbas was not ready to commit to anything, but he was able to get Olmert to consent to far-reaching concessions, and then halted the negotiations. The upshot is that when the negotiations resume, the Palestinian side will insist that they must begin “where they left off” – with the starting point being the Israeli positions as set forward in Olmert’s generous proposal, with no concession having been made by the other side.

        Am I misinterpreting things? This is exactly what happened in 1995 in Yossi Beilin’s talks with Abbas. Then, too, the talks led to extensive Israeli concessions; then, too, the Israeli side sought to put things down on paper and fashion a final accord – and then, too, Mahmoud Abbas refused to sign. There was never any Beilin-Abbas Agreement. There was only a paper laying out Israeli concessions.

        At Camp David, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton became fed up with this method and, as he ran out of patience, told Yasser Arafat that so far he had rejected every offer. Perhaps you have a proposal of your own, Clinton suggested to Arafat. But no such Palestinian proposal was ever placed on the table.

        At Camp David, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton became fed up with this method and, as he ran out of patience, told Yasser Arafat that so far he had rejected every offer. Perhaps you have a proposal of your own, Clinton suggested to Arafat. But no such Palestinian proposal was ever placed on the table.

      • Ken Kelso

        Abbas already said: “Not a single Jew in his would be state, while Israel is not a Jewish state”. Still want Israelis to negotiate with this logic?

  • Ken Kelso

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446187,00.html#ixzz2NQEv0R49
    Khalidi Praises Palestinian Terrorist behind Munich massacre.
    November 03, 2008

    SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And there is a new development tonight surrounding the Columbia University professor, Rashid Khalidi. Now, thanks to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, “Hannity & Colmes” has obtained a 1991 article that Khalidi wrote in the Middle East Report. It is an obituary of sorts for this man, named Abu Iyad, otherwise known as Salah Khalaf.

    Now, Khalaf was a member of the PLO, but he’s also been implicated as a member of Black September, the group that orchestrated the terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics which resulted in the murder of 11 Israeli athletes.

    Black September has also been blamed for a 1973 attack in the Sudan that killed two U.S. embassy officials.

    In the obituary, written by Khalidi, he makes no mention of Black September or any role that Khalaf in any sort that he’s a terrorist and this was a terrorist attack, and instead praises him as, quote, “somebody who will be sorely missed by the Palestinian people to whom he has devoted his life.”

    Now as we showed you last night, our own Griff Jenkins tried to speak to Professor Khalidi, if you want to call him a professor, but he wouldn’t talk to us.

  • Ken Kelso

    Larry thanks for mentioning that info below.

  • BagLady

    Ah, history. Wonderful thing: http://marcbrecy.perso.neuf.fr/history.html

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Ah, Eternal Nakba. It’s a wonderful thing.

      • BagLady

        I get the impression you relish eternal killing.

        Am just watching BBC in Aleppo. Helicopters are dropping ‘barrel bombs’ on the people. Great, an entire country in rubble and starving to death. The chemicals will go on doing their damage for generations. Anyone who can see good coming out of such barbarity just has to be depraved.

        • Drakken

          Muslims killing muslims, where’s the beef? It is not eternal killing if the enemy is all dead.

  • dorothy malone

    somebody find that tape and who hid it

  • Keith

    Can’t the Palestinians just “take back” the land?

    • Drakken

      I really wish they would try, and then the Israeli’s can finally take off the bloody velvet glove and put on the mailed fist and let the muslims have it in spades, always remember, no more muslims, no more problems.

      • Keith

        I hear you. I am a live and let live kind of guy. The Pali’s not so much. If the Pali’s get a country and then attack Israel it will definitely be mailed fist time.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Whatever Israel does, the UN and Eurabia and socialists would oppose it.

          The palies would trot out their garbage and cry war crimes.

          Better an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure.

        • Drakken

          I can assure you, that there will never be a pali state, the effing ragheads are to inbred to want peace.

  • wileyvet

    If Khalidi is a historian, perhaps he can show us contemporary primary source material that corroborates the Islamic narrative of Muhammad’s existence. Maybe he can also shed some light on the ethnic cleansing of Arabia, the brutal conversion and extermination of Arab pagans and their culture, by the forces of Islam. I wonder if he can explain why the “Palestinians” never demanded a state of the Ottoman Empire or from Jordan from 1948 to 1967 when the latter annexed the West Bank. More importantly explain honestly why a blood thirsty barbarous people should be treated with courtesy, diplomacy, respect and sympathy?

    • BagLady

      if he can explain why the “Palestinians” never demanded a state of the Ottoman Empire or from Jordan from 1948 to 1967″?

      The world was not always divided by fences. Even I remember days when one could wander freely from place to place, hanging one’s hat wherever the mind took you without having very expensive, hard to come by papers to prove that the bit of sand you sat on was actually ‘yours’.

  • ahad_ha_amoratsim

    Now I know where the trolls and Jew haters responding to Danny Danon’s article at Politico are getting their talking points. Most of their supposed information could have come straight from Khalidi.

  • Drakken

    When is this academic exercise in stupidity going to end? Here let me break it down to folks and make it so simple that a leftist can do it, the muslims will NEVER EVER give the Israeli’s any peace, period! This bloody farce called the peace process is kubuki theater on steroids, time to let war have a chance and finally end this utter stupidity, when you killem all and let allah sortem out, you will finally have peace.

    • BagLady

      …time to let war have a chance and finally end this utter stupidity, when
      you killem all and let allah sortem out, you will finally have peace.”

      Is that statement taken straight from Mein Kampf?

      Didn’t work for them and it won’t work for you.

      • Drakken

        War you ignorant commi prat is natural to the human condition and has been since the dawn of time, only you goofy utopian leftards live in the land of denial.
        I see you haven’t joined your little pali friends in protest, I hear Rachel Corrie is looking for company and companionship. It is rather amusing to witness someone from the 1st world who has kinship with the 3rd world and is intent on destroying where she came from.

        • Shel_TR

          Take a breath, Drakken. War is certainly plentiful throughout history, and it does sometimes serve a purpose (to every season, turn, turn, tun); but, you are speaking as if you welcome it (as opposed to its being used unwillingly, as a last resort).

          Based on your “pali” reference, I presume you’re pro-Israel. You’re among friends. But everybody ought to abhor war. Certainly, Judaism (esp. Isaiah) has always had a strong anti-war enthusiasm.

          • Drakken

            To abhor war in the face of naked aggression, only invites more aggression and your demise. War in the end decides all things, as it always has and as it will always be. Israel has only one choice to make, either live in this make believe world of the muslims will give you peace, or you do whatever it takes for your survival.

          • Shel_TR

            If there were some imperative for war (e.g. the potential for destruction), then, certainly, the peril would have to be met with equal or greater opposition.

            But there is no existential threat (leaving aside Iran’s nuclear drive as a separate discussion). No Arab country is threatening Israel or global Judaism. Even terrorism, truly a scourge, cannot possibly terminate Israel or global Judaism.

            Your POV does not deal with the world as it is. It certainly fit in the 1950′s and 1960′s, but in the world of the past half-century Israel has been freed of the threat of impending annihilation. Israel and global Jewry need to begin dealing with reality. Because in reality, throwing around our weight so imprudently only strengthens opponents.

            Military strength and belligerence have limits. WWI did not create peace. The Allies’ humiliation of Germany sowed the seeds for Nazism and WWII. It was the Marshall Plan that created peace between Germany and Europe / the rest of the world. The only long-term solution is peace.

  • graceandrick@usana.com

    I thank God for people like Andrew Harrod, Ken Kelso and all of you who speak out to bring clarity and truth into the public realm, and I thank you. There is a determined force at work to distribute false and incorrect information about Israel and its people in an effort to seduce us into believing it to be true.
    Any effort to speak out in the face of that force is laudable.
    I am committing myself to this cause at http://www.knelsenkollection.com
    This is mainly a site for photographs, but my blogs attempt to promote material like this and contribute my own thoughts.
    I think this is a time in Israeli history when they need to become much more assertive and initiate a clear view of who they are articulate their rights to the land; international law is on their side!
    I’m promoting Caroline Glick’s new book, THE ISRAELI SOLUTION, anywhere I can. This is an initiative that has more support in Israel than one might think.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      graceandrick AKBAR!

    • Ken Kelso

      Thank you

  • Donald J DaCosta

    dihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC35JMkd0ZI

    This is a video of Daniel Pipes appearing on the Sean Hannity show on Fox in August of 2008. For those unaware of the connection between Khalidi and Obama and perhaps wondering why Obama seems to favor the Palestinians or disfavor the Israelis, this should prove interesting. The video also mentions the connection between Obama and the “former” terrorist, Bill Ayers.

    Note that all of this was known about Obama before he was elected in 11/08 and demonstrates how far in the tank the legacy media was then and remains now. In a sane world these two connections alone should have sunk Obama’s chances of winning any major political victory for any significant political position in 08 and beyond. Instead, by a concerted effort to obscure all that was and remains troubling about Obama he remains shrouded in a cloak of media adulation and shielded from all that would destroy most anyone else especially of a conservative persuasion who, under Obama’s watch, are now considered “terrorists.”

    For anyone thinking the unthinkable can’t happen in the U.S. of A., think again.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Dear Rashid Khalidi,

    HAPPY ETERNAL NAKBA!

  • Shel_TR

    As a Zionist, and as a Jew, I am utterly disappointed by Western reactionary, anti-Palestinian sentiment, and, ESPECIALLY, the blatant racism so often offered.

    So many North American Jews are W-A-Y behind the progressive views of the majority of Israeli Jews. E.G.:
    - The majority of Israelis Jews supports the concept of a Palestinian state. Admittedly, the mechanics for doing so are entirely unclear, but the objective is clearly agreed.
    - The majority of Israeli Jews realizes that settlements in Judea and Samaria are, indeed, colonization. Nonetheless, they are supported for the areas adjoining Jerusalem, as long as other areas currently within Israel are “traded”. Secular Israelis DO NOT support settlements further in to Judea and Samaria, “settlers” (typically more observant Jews) DO support settlements throughout Judea and Samaria.
    - Most Israelis realize that many Palestinians had lived for decades in areas that are now within Israel Proper. Most Israelis understand that those Palestinians left as a result of a combination of “pull” (from Arabic governments and leadership) as well as “push” (from Israeli forces and governments).

    The references so often made by ostensibly pro-Israel commenters regarding the historic absence of a Palestinian state are completely without any significance. Granted, any pro-Palestinian must admit that there has never been a Palestinian state. But any pro-Israeli must admit that using that fact as an excuse for opposing the creation of a Palestinian state makes Israel complicit in the historic denial of Palestinian self-rule (by Ottoman, English, and then Jordanian and Egyptian regimes).

    There is an undeniable trend among North American Jews, especially those who are 40 or younger, to feel less and less affiliation with Israel. A major contributor is the anti-Paletinian hardline politics prevalent in the North American branch of the pro-Israel camp. These younger Jews disagree with the hardline politics. And, even among older North American Jews, many of us feel that our Jewish history ought to make us MORE sensitive to a stateless group, exploited by more powerful forces / nations.

    We Jews just completed Pesach. We just said that “we were all once slaves”. Now we are free men (and women). On a religious level, we have an obligation to those who are repressed. Torah teaches us that Ishmael is our brother. Of course, it is a dysfunctional relationship. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore our brother, and neither can we keep him down. As “a light unto the nations”, Isaiah implored us to demand of ourselves an example that is HIGHER than the standards accepted by others. Other regimes may have denied Palestinian statehood, but we cannot accept such an absence of humanitarian concern for a nation of people, all who are created in the image of G-d, just as any other human beings.

    And, on a strategic level, I do not want to shackle my descendants to a virtually endless war in which they are, globally, VASTLY outnumbered.

    And, as to the hard-core haters, I can only say that I oppose you, utterly and completely. While it’s clear that terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism must be eliminated, we must resist ANY hatred toward broader Islam, or Muslims in general. Baruch Goldstein and Meir Kahane, both of whom represent religious extremist hatred, cannot reasonably be used as justification toward hatred of Judaism or Jews. For the same reason, we cannot use terrorism as a basis for hatred toward Islam or Muslims.

    I do not have any “grand solution”. But that’s not the point. First, North American Jews must become aware that they are way behind the better-informed opinions of the majority of Israelis. Most Israelis accept some form of Palestinian statehood. Most Israelis accept Palestinians. North American Jews owe it to themselves to become more aware of current Israeli opinion.

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      And another reason is that younger Jews have always lived when there was State of Israel that was not crammed into indefensible 1949 armistice lines, never held their breath as Israel was threatened with extermination in 1967 and again in 1973, did not have parents (or friend’s parents) who barely escaped extermination and who saw their families exterminated because there was no state that would give Jews a refuge, and cannot conceive of Jews in Europe (let alone the US) today needing a Jewish state to exist.

      Yet another is the failure of our school system to teach history (not that they ever did a good job of teaching middle eastern history) or logic and the failure of the Jewish community to remedy those failures with a good supplemental education.

      That same failure of Jewish education also leads to a loss of idenification and empathy with Jews across the world who face oppression and death, even today and even in the West, simply for being Jewish. And for that matter, a willingness to countenance the end of the Jewish people by intermarriage and assimilation, and a lack of identification with the Jewish community generally.

      And finally, the reliance on television, the internet, and the press, and other purveyors of the ignorant and inaccurate accepted wisdom that Jews have no legal right to buy land or build housing in the land set aside for that purpose by the League of Nations, and a total ignorance of the sources in international law (see the Levy report) that strongly suggest that Israel has stronger claims to the disputed territories than any other party.

      We need to find a way to reach Jews like Shel-Tr before they absorb and spread the ideologies of those who are dedicated to our destruction.

      • Shel_TR

        There’s no (legitimate) dispute regarding Jewry’s / Israel’s claim to lands in the Middle East. Jews have had a continuous residency in places like Jerusalem, the Galilee, Hebron, etc., for literally thousands of years. Even Norman Finkelstein has admitted that, if one respects law, then one must admit that Israel has a right to exist (I don’t have the link right now, but it’s a fascinating and very satisfying admission, I recommend you search for the clip).

        But even given such legitimacy, the younger crowd is still losing affiliation to Israel. Is it because they have no personal experience of the Israeli state’s historical threats? Note that young Sabras share the same lack of personal experience of the state’s fragile existence (Israelis having been free of existential threats since 1973). Yet young Sabras are passionately Zionistic (of course, olim are Zionistic by definition, hence my concentration on Sabras).

        No, I’d still say that North American Jews are turned-off of Israel and Zionism because of the hardline politics that they witness amongst their North American co-religionists.

        They (and I) may be attacked as “naive”. But there is a definite risk that an endlessly hardline approach induces more and more external opposition. The IDF, and the Mossad, and all of global Jewry, are all very strong. But we are not SO strong that our safety is guaranteed, regardless of the amount of enmity against us from the entire world. And more than the external threat, the GREATEST risk is the divisiveness that an eternally hardline approach creates between Jews, ourselves. We can withstand A LOT of hatred, but not all. And we won’t withstand ANYTHING if we, ourselves, are divided one from another.

        • ahad_ha_amoratsim

          Well said. There’s a lot more to be said about the disaffectation of younger American Jews. Not now, though, given the time. Have a good Shabbos.

    • Drakken

      Here let me help you with your unicorns and rainbow moment, there will never ever be a pali state period! Those effing ragheads want you dead, what part of that do you not get or understand, talk about jewicidals, your too stupid to save.

      • Shel_TR

        There’s no question that Islamo-fascism is an enemy, to Jews, to Israel, to the West in general. But have you ever dealt with Palestinians in the West Bank? I have. Simply put, they are not an existential threat. And by spreading your hostility with so little focus, you only increase the terrorists’ influence.

        • Freedom Call

          Go tell that to the families of all terror victims.
          Most recently: http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Police-investigate-nationalistic-motives-in-murder-of-young-woman-351089

          It amazes me how often the israeli dove camp deludes itself with this notion of how non-threatening wanting to kill us all while supporting/commiting heinous terror attacks.

          Before the gaza and lebenon withdrawls most of israel did not live under the threat of missile attacks? After the withdrawls all of israel is in range.

          Go hug a palestinian and get stabbed in the back.

          • Shel_TR

            So, nu, who said “non-threatening”? I said that the terrorists are not an existential threat. Big difference.

            Israel has always been subject to heinous terror. But focusing EXCLUSIVELY on strong responses to terror actually enhances the power of the terrorists. It leads us to abandon the initiative, and it gives terrorists ultimate veto power over any progress the nation may be able to otherwise achieve. Thankfully, Israeli leadership has always known to avoid this trap. So for example, we made peace with Egypt (despite their sponsorship of the Fedayeen terrorists). And Rabin famously said that we’ll “fight terrorism as if there is no peace process” and “pursue peace as if there is no terrorism.”

            War, though necessary in some circumstances, certainly does NOT provide a lasting resolution to intra-nation conflict. In case you haven’t noticed, the world has changed. In ancient times, wars meant the complete eradication of the losers. That’s how conflicts with the Edomites, Hittites, and countless other civilizations, all ended. But in the modern world, this form of resolution is not at all accepted. And with globalization, financial integration, the U.N., etc., the world has the mechanisms to enforce it. Admittedly, the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other genocides, are proof of the fallibility of the mechanisms. But there can really be little doubt that, if Israel were to completely destroy Gazans or the West Bank, Israel would be totally ostracized from the rest of the world. So your “solution” would simply never work.

            I, also, don’t have the “solution”. But I DO know that, ultimately, it will involve making peace with our enemies. After centuries of killing and repression, England and Ireland are on the path toward peace. Is there some reason why Jews and Arabs would be less able to achieve the same thing…??

          • Drakken

            When your enemy is dead, he cannot come after you in revenge.

        • Drakken

          I have dealt with these sub human muslim savages since I was 17, in a very nasty place called Beirut. Islam is islam and where ever islam goes, the blood always flows, without exception, period, it all comes down to a very simple equation, it is either you and yours survive and thrive or theirs. There is no middle ground where islam is concerned and never has been. Good luck with your utopian world of kumbaya and a COEXIST sticker on your Prius, I’ll say a prayer for you.

          • Shel_TR

            ‘When your enemy is dead…”
            “…sub human muslim savages…”

            It seems you’re suggesting the wholesale murder of all Muslims, everywhere. You are allowing your paranoia to drive you to maniacal, homicidal fantasies. And, long before such genocidal dreams could be achieved, they would induce such fierce “blow back” (from the entire civilized world) that would Jews would be isolated forever. This is aside from the fact that all of Jewish post-ancient history argues for the absolute immorality of even such a suggestion.

            No middle ground? Really? How do you account for Rambam’s glorious life..in Egypt?? Similarly, many thousands of Sephardi Jews, over the course of multiple generations, chose to stay in Islamic countries, and achieved great success there.

            You fail to distinguish between Islam vs. Islamists (hard-core fundamentalists). It is a fatal failure.

    • Freedom Call

      Let me fix that for you:
      Most israelis do not want to govern these murder mongering barbarians.
      The left will never win an election in israel again due to being out of touch with reality.

      • Shel_TR

        Who says I’ve whitewashed anything? The problem is that you fail to distinguish between terrorists / Islamo-fascists vs. all Muslims (or Islam itself).

        I wholeheartedly support the war on terror. However, it will never ON ITS OWN bring us peace. If you want to enslave all Jewish children to an eternal war, where we are vastly outnumbered by our enemies (Israel vs. all Arabs, or worse, all Jews vs. all Muslims) then it’s not my hold on reality that ought to be questioned.

        Peace, ultimately, is the only lasting solution. And, given that, there can be little doubt that the timing for making peace will likely never be better than now (where “now” is in terms of this half of the 21st century). Jews now have a state, and it is very strong. Israel is a vital part of the West, and has critical support from an alliance of nations whose global vitality the world has never seen before. West Bank Palestinians have been taking security responsibility for years. NOW is the time to drive a wedge between the West Bank’s (relative) moderation vs. Gaza’s fundamentalism and militarism. NOW is the time to negotiate with them in earnest.

        Fight terror, with all our might.

        Seek peace, with all our resolve.

  • Christopher Riddle

    When is The Los Angeles SLIMES Going To Get Up Off That Tape Of Obongo And His “Good Bud”Khalidi????????????????????

  • tabletto68

    Who are the real heirs of Palestine? Amazing story behind the link.

    http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/palestine.html