The Re-1947 Document

Even for someone like me who abandoned the “It all started in 1967” theory long ago, the report from the National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel from 2006, featured on ZNET as an article titled, The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, from February 9, 2007, was a disturbing read. And then, at the bottom of it, I found out it was just a summary, an abridged form of a PDF file from the Mossawa Center. In all probability, the Marxist fifth columnists at ZNET found it worthy to feature that article now because of the climate of intellectual legitimacy that Jimmy “Too Many Jews” Carter’s book has bestowed on the subject.

It is deeply disturbing if only for the list of participants toward its end (p. 25): Arabs living within the 1949 Armistice Line borders, not in the “Occupied Territories” taken in the 1967 Six-Day War. Many of the participants are academics holding positions in Israeli Universities: Ben Gurion University (Be’er Sheva), Haifa University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and even Bar Ilan University (only Tel-Aviv University doesn’t have a “Palestinian Right of Return” advocate to its name, for some unfathomable reason). I wonder what Steven Plaut (HaShem bless him) would make of it, if he hasn’t already seen it.

The report is marketed as a call for equal status for Arabs and Jews in the state of Israel—a seemingly innocuous cause which, as we now know only too well, is a mask for the goal of ending Zionism (G-d forbid), the same thing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants, only carried out by less explosive (though that too is not to be taken for granted) means. As with the cultural and demographic jihad in Europe and the United States, the Mossawa activists line their report handsomely with post-colonial language, guaranteeing the support of the Western Left for their cause, as well as future condemnation from them of Israel for “racism” should it do anything to defend itself. Exhibit A:

We are the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the indigenous peoples, the residents of the States (sic) of Israel, and an integral part of the Palestinian People and the Arab and Muslim and human Nation. (Both emphases mine. —ZY)

Right after that, the next two paragraphs elaborate on the “Al-Nakba on 1948”, to make it clear to the outside world that the state of Israel was born in sin. More on that vein on p. 5, after the heading, “The Palestinian Arabs in Israel and their relation to the State of Israel”:

Israel is the outcome of a settlement process initiated by the Zionist-Jewish elite in Europe and the west (sic) and realized by Colonial (sic) countries contributing to it and by promoting Jewish immigration to Palestine, in light of the results the Second World War and the Holocaust. After the creation of the States (sic) in 1948, Israel continued to use policies derived from its vision as an extension of the west (sic) in the Middle East and continued conflicting with its neighbors. […]

This should give you an idea of what stands for history at the Mossawa Center: Zionism being a reaction to the Holocaust (I am not sure, however, that that meaning is what was intended; the poor wording of the sentence makes it difficult to ascertain the meaning), and complete omission of the 1947 refusal of the local Arabs to agree to the UN treaty and the 1948 invasion by the Arab armies. To those Leftists who sarcastically ask, “Israel can do no wrong?”, this is the answer, in showing them and asking, just as sarcastically, “Israel can do no right?”

The primal sin, of course, is that Jews inhabit the land at all (p. 5):

Israel carried out the Judaization process in various forms, beginning with the expulsion of the Palestinian People back in 1948 […] This has led to the judaization (sic) of the land and erosion of the Palestinian history and civilization and the building of political and economical system that marginalized and weakened the Palestinian People especially in Israel.

Everything you wanted is here: Western colonialism, framing the “Palestinians” as being like the Native Americans, and the implication that Israel is an apartheid state. However, the next paragraph was a light in that darkness, an unintentional one of course, but still:

Israel can not (sic) be defined as a democratic State (sic). It can be defined as an ethnocratic state such as turkey, (sic), Srilanka, (sic) Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia (and Canada forty years ago). These countries have engaged their minorities in the political, social and economic aspects of life, in a very limited and unequal way. This comes amidst a continued and firm policy of control and censorship which guarantee the hegemony of the majority and marginalizing the minority. (All emphases mine. —ZY)

So where is the book titled, “Lithuania: Peace not Apartheid”? Where are the international resolutions declaring that “Estonism is Racism”? Latvia doesn’t look to me like a pariah state blamed for all the troubles in the world, does it?

It is reassuring: I don’t address Turkey here, which is problematic because of its mainstream genocide-denial and its now creeping Islamization (meaning the scandalous denial of the Armenian genocide is now not even beset—if I could use that word at all—by having a model “modern, secular, moderate, democratic Muslim state”), and of Sri Lanka I don’t know much; but Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are modern European states, democracies, freshly liberated from Marxofascist oppression. The comparison of Israel to those three states is a compliment.

Among the “ethnocratic controls” Israel imposes on the “Palestinians” are (p. 6):

A. Cutting all identity relations between the Palestinian Arabs in Israel and the rest of Palestinian People and the Arab and Islamic Nation. Israel has tried to create a new group of “Israeli Arabs”.

Plainly put, Israel is being faulted for not letting people under its jurisdiction ally themselves with enemy states, regimes and ideologies. Note “Islamic Nation”, not just as an example of the “Islamophobia is Racism” canard, but also for its lack of hesitation to exclude Christian Arabs from the Narrative. For anyone who doubts the Christians Arab detractors of Israel are useful idiots of the Muslims, to be accorded dhimmi status when no longer serving the purpose, this is as good a proof you can come by. Another point on the list:

D. Opposing the Palestinian Arab leadership attempts to building a vision adverse to consolidate the Status (sic) of the Arab minority in the Jewish state which ultimately accepts the Jewish control of the state, its resources and abilities.

Again, the Mossawa activists are criticizing the state of Israel for actually exercising sovereignty. The idea that, after 2,000 of being at the mercy of non-Jews in the Diaspora, Jews should return to their historical homeland to be the rulers of it, free of the fear of laws being enacted against them by non-Jews, is here described by the Mossawa activists as an “ethnocratic control tactic”. Yet that idea is the core of Zionism, not just religious Zionism but also the secular Zionism of Herzl and Pinsker (HaShem bless their rest)! This document is anti-Zionist without question, no matter that it masquerades as an argument for Arab Israeli equality.

On the same page, the goal is stated:

The Palestinian Arabs in Israel are in need of changing their status. While they are preserving their Arab Palestinian identity, they need to obtain their full citizenship in the State (sic) and its institutions. […]

So, an Arab, Muslim science minister (Ghaleb Majadleh) is not enough? What more do they want in order to consider themselves full citizens? (Don’t tell me, I know.) Speaking of Majadleh, he has been very quick to use his position to… slam the Israeli works near the Temple Mount. Note: not to improve the state of science in Israel, not even to improve the state of Arab science and technology education in Israel, but to criticize his own state for a matter of religion and archeology! And they wonder why the Jews of Israel today don’t trust them.

Continuing on the same page, the heading, “The Palestinians in Israel should demand the following, from the State”. Very subtle and nuanced, is it not? “Demand”. It’s always about demanding with the Muslims, wherever they are. The first demand:

The State should acknowledge responsibility of (sic) the Palestinian Nakba (tragedy of 1948) and its disastrous consequences on the Palestinians in general and the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel in particular. Israel should start (Emphasis mine. —ZY) by rectifying the damage that it had caused and should consider paying compensation for its Palestinian citizens as individuals and groups for the damage resulted from the Nakba […]

First demand: recognize that you are born sinners. Atonement starts by rectifying that Original Sin—who knows where it may end. (Who knows? I know. We all know, if we just listen to their authentic voices on MEMRI.) Still on that first point:

[…] and the continuous discriminating policies derived from viewing them as enemies and not as citizens that have a right to appose (sic) the state and challenge its rules. (Emphasis mine. —ZY)

Why do we Jews view them as enemies? Really… it’s just like those damn Islamophobes who take 9/11 as their reason to hate the Religion of Peace. (All in sarcasm, of course.)

Another point, from the next page (p. 7):

Israel should refrain from adopting policies and schemes in favor of the majority. […]

Or to put it in another way: let the demographic jihad go unabated. But when, G-d forbid, the Muslims become the majority, Israel will be told to refrain from adopting policies and schemes in favor of the minority—the Jews.

Next point, belying the secular-nationalistic nature of this conflict and throwing a bone to the Christian useful idiots at the same time:

Israel should acknowledge the rights of the Moslems to run their affairs according to the Waqf (Islamic endowment) and the Islamic holy sites. Israel should no longer be in control of the Islamic and Christian holy sites and acknowledge their right of self-rule the (sic) as part of the collective rights given to Palestinian Arabs.

“Israel should no longer be in control” (thus, bare and naked for all to see) of the holy sites, even if one of them happens to have been built on top of the Jews’ most and only holy site! Religion of thieves.

For the next thing that held my interest I jump to page 10, under the heading:

There is no doubt that struggle for land was and is still the core of the Palestinian–Zionist conflict since the inception of the Zionist movement by the end of the nineteenth century. The Zionist movement used religious and secular terminologies to convince the Jewish people and the world of its right over historic Palestine. Terms from the torah (sic) such as the “holy land” and “land of israel” were and are still used. These were mixed with secular sayings such as “a land without a people for a people without land”. They were like a fuel that operates the Zionist cart and unite the “Jews of the Diaspora” and link their future to Palestine. (Both emphases mine. —ZY)

Their thievery is not confined to physical things; they steal everything, including spiritual heritages (the Koran rips off the Tanakh, then states it is the correction to it) and historical inheritances. That paragraph makes it absolutely clear that the writers think the ideology of Zionism is their enemy, and that they think the Jews do not have a rightful claim to the land. It proves beyond doubt that they view it as a zero sum game. If so, when are we Jews going to reciprocate that, for the sake of our survival?

Another tidbit, from page 14:

Our study tackles the institutional structure which includes local authorities, political parties and civil society institutions. Concerning local authorities, we found out that, during the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, the Arab society in Israel was witnessing a genuine development on the levels of administration, organization and leadership. This development process was very limited and did not last long as conventional administration endured the process of development. Corruption and deterioration of the administrative structure expanded. (Both emphases mine. —ZY)

Let me summarize the above: the supposedly apartheid state of Israel permitted its local Arabs self-rule, and that self-rule was negated by the corruption among the self-ruling Arabs. That was in the 1980’s and 1990’s? Sure sounds like the daily news about the oxymoronic “Palestinian Authority”. But then as now, they blame Israel for their own faults.

I now pass on to page 19, which begins with the heading, “The Palestinian Arab culture in Israel”:

The Palestinian Arab culture in Israel underneath the Israeli regime is a nature (sic) continuation of the Palestinian culture that was developed here up until the Nakba. Prior to the Nakba, Palestine was a focal point for two Arab renaissance centers: Lebanon and Egypt. Culture, literature and philosophy were developed in Palestine. Books, Daily (sic) newspapers and tabloids were published. Print houses were established in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem. Translation (sic) from Arabic to English, French and Russian were produced as well. Intellects of the Arab world exchanged visits with their Palestinian counterparts.

What a pity it is that Mark Twain, visiting the land in the late 19th century, couldn’t attest to all that “Palestinian culture”; instead, it had to wait for the influx of Muslim immigration to the land once they saw the desert described by Twain begin to bloom. (Under whose hands? Now, now, Zionist Youngster, don’t confuse people with the facts.)

The next few pages give proposals for nursing “Palestinian cultural identity” back to its “former health”. It makes me wonder: for two millennia in the Diaspora, we Jews never had to worry about such issues; and today, when a Jew decides to come back home (praise be to G-d) after years of grazing in strange fields, he finds half the work already done for him, in that his cultural heritage is all laid out to the tiniest detail in a multitude of books. But the “Palestinians”, little over than half a century after their “dispersal”, need to form committees to bring their cultural identity back to its former health. Mayhap it is because there was never such a thing as a “Palestinian cultural identity”, or indeed a “Palestinian nation”, in the first place? Perish the thoughtcrime.

The document ends with concrete organizational proposals for furthering the goal, and finally the list of participants mentioned at the beginning of this post. Each participant, keep in mind, agrees to this document, with all its seditious, anti-Zionist ideas. And here it is that I wish to deliver my take on it as a whole.

In the 1990’s (the pre-9/11 and Oslo Accord hopefulness days, as I say repeatedly) I wrote Rabbi Meir Kahane (hy"d) off as a dangerous racist fanatic who had best be locked up. I cannot yet say I am a Kahanist, yet day after day I see him more and more as having been a seer giving warning. The participation of Israeli Arabs, Arabs within the 1949 Armistice Lines, in the Second Intifada riots of October 2000 was the first event that gave me pause to rethink my position regarding Kahane. And there are many Israeli Jews who have gone that same route.

The Leftists quote from the Torah, “You shall not oppress the stranger in your land”, against the state of Israel. That quote actually refutes them, at two points: first, “in your land” means the land is really ours, while the other side, the “Palestinians”, as evidenced by this document, are saying the land is not ours at all; secondly, this mitzvah means that, contrary to the anti-Zionists’ accusations, non-Jews are allowed to live on our land, and are to be accorded fair treatment at that! The non-Jews must, however, abide by G-d’s Law, which for them means the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. That is why Joshua rid the land of the Canaanites (polytheist baby-sacrificers). And non-Jews live on the land having accepted that is Jewish land ruled by Jewish law; if they are not pleased with that, they are free to leave (all the rest of the world belongs to the non-Jews). And if they are not pleased with that but do not want to leave either, they must be expelled. This will no doubt raise the standard Leftist outcries, but there is an easy, handy answer to them: it’s not about race, it’s about culture.

The saintly Eurodhimmis, basking in their self-righteousness, would do well to realize that, in the near future, expulsion of the Muslims within their states will be a matter of survival. Not because the Muslims are “a threat to their racial purity” (the Leftist caricature and strawman), but because they are a threat to the European, Western culture of liberty and democracy. The color of the skin is not the issue here; the issue is whether those football stadiums will really be used for football games a few years from now, or whether they will be used for public beheadings and amputations. When considered that way, it is plain to see that the Leftist platitudes are nothing more than a suicide pact being forced upon non-Muslims everywhere—not just in Israel, Europe and the United States, but in India and Thailand as well.

The document is a statement of intent. If the Muslims of Israel (and Christian useful idiots of theirs) put it into practice, they will find the Jews of Israel to say, in unison, “We are all Kahane!” And it will, again, be no one’s fault but their own, their fault of having, as Abba Eban said, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.