Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

How the Land of Israel Was Turned To Be Another’s (Response to Karkar)

Left-wing neo-Nazi site CounterPunch (upper banner as of April 4, 2007: “THE ORIGINS OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY”; “‘It was impossible to hold the line. All we got was a battering from the Jews.’ – John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, 1956”; “Read Harry Clark’s devastating chronicle of how the Lobby humbled Ike, in our new CounterPunch newsletter.”) has the article, “How Palestine Became Israel’s Land”, for March 31, 2007, by Sonja Karkar, the “founder and president of Women for Palestine in Melbourne, Australia”. I consider it representative of the historical theft (also called revisionism) committed by our Muslim enemies and their enablers on the Western Left. Here follows my fisking.

For Palestinians, theirs is not the land of conquest, […]

Conquered in 638 by the early Muslims storming from Arabia.

[…] but the land of their roots going back to time immemorial.

As well as a particular riposte at the book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, by Joan Peters, Karkar engages here in the general identity politics pastime of historical one-upmanship, or the game of “More Ancient Than Thou”. It’s a contest the Jewish people can pass with flying colors, thanks be to HaShem, but it’s not to the point. As the Torah describes, the first-born son can be divested of his blessing in favor of a younger son if G-d considers the latter more righteous. The Torah has no qualms saying the Canaanites were in the Land of Israel before the Israelites came back from Egypt; but as they had defiled the land with idolatry and child-sacrifice, they had forfeited it.

Such a lineage does not rely on a biblical promise like the Jewish claim that God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants, and is therefore, the historical site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel.

Karkar takes pride in that the “Palestinian” claim does not rely on the Torah. What a foolish pride this is, for there is no stronger claim on a land than one made by the Creator of the entire world.

It seems to me that attacks on the Biblical claim have gotten more frequent lately. They’re still a trickle, but it’s a sign. And I consider it a good sign.

As long as the attacks are confined to the State of Israel, to Zionism and even to Jews themselves (“The Israel Lobby”), there is still room at the Court On High to press on with it. That is because the Jews, like all humans, are free-willed, and the prosecutors can point out their transgressions to G-d and say, “Here you see they are still worthy of chastisement through the hands of the nations”. But the Torah is different. The Torah is not a sin-capable human being, it is G-d’s Word; more, it is the plan according to which G-d has made the world (He “looked at the Torah and created the world”—istekal b’oraita u-v’ra alma). So when our enemies criticize the Biblical claim, calling the Torah “a book of myths and fairy-tales”, they are in effect saying to G-d what they think of His book (and it does not matter that they may deny even the existence of G-d—denial does not a fact make). As our sages say, “The notepad is open and the hand is writing down”. Every word our enemies say against the Torah is recorded, stored for the time of reckoning, to stand accusing all those who have said them.

It belongs to the people of Palestine by the simple fact of their continuous residence repeated through birth and possession going back to the earliest Canaanites and even those people living there before recorded history.

“Palestinians = Canaanites”. Very interesting… Karkar says the “Palestinians” are the descendants of the aforementioned whom G-d ordered vanquished on account of their idolatry and child-sacrifice. If only for that reason, for those practices (child-sacrifice), they could be considered [un]worthy descendants of the Canaanites. But the fact is they are descendants of the 7th-century Arab conquerors, probably mixed with the 7th-century inhabitants like the mestizos of Central and South America, but having no cultural connection to the land. They speak Arabic, and they have always regarded this land as just one part of the Arab and Islamic worlds—always, that is, until recently, when they found out that construing themselves as a distinct nation could win them great dividends in the eyes of self-loathing Westerners. The appearance of this article on a Leftist magazine in America epitomizes that fact.

They were there when the Israelites invaded the land, occupied it, […]

See, it’s not just the current “occupation” that’s wrong, it’s that of 3,000 years ago as well. Notice how the “reality-based community” (that’s how the Leftists call themselves) are willing to drag an issue for three millennia. Rationality would, I’d think, call for letting bygones be bygones after so many years. But the charade of the Left is here exposed for all to see. Just as it is does not matter to them that we Jews, beginning in the late 19th century, made this desolate land bloom—instead, it’s all about “stealing” and “injustice” and “immorality” for them. Worthy matters, but not rational by any stretch of imagination. I said before: the obsession with justice is the figleaf Marxists wear to cover their shame of assaulting the justice of the Torah, the only true justice, coming from the Source of All Justice, on Whom they turn their backs.

[…] and held it intermittently as wave after wave of other conquerors came and went, and they were still there when the Romans put an end to Jewish Palestine by destroying Jerusalem in 135AD.

The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, not 135 CE. The latter date is the date they crushed the Bar Kochba rebellion. A petty point, but it should make Karkar’s entire knowledge of the subject suspect.

If a religious basis is sought, then the Palestinians can lay claim to being the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael who is regarded the forefather of the Arabs.

So which is it… Canaanites or Ishmaelites? Whichever is expedient, I guess. Neither claim gives the “Palestinians” a right over the Land of Israel, as it is the one part of the world promised by G-d to the Jews (while all the rest is free for the non-Jews to divide as they wish, yet they still covet this particular land. If you can find me a rational, non-theistic, non-Biblical explanation for that, give me a call), but as it is always with Muslims, the end justifies the means.

But actually, Palestinian rights are enshrined in the universally accepted principle that land belongs to its indigenous inhabitants.

Pity, though, that it is not universally accepted how long a people needs to be on a particular land in order to be considered indigenous. Do the Irish, Scots and Welsh have the right to drive those “Sassenach colonial invaders” back to the Danish and North German coast? If not, why not? It was Jewish quisling Erich Fromm said, “If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived 2,000 years ago, this world would be a madhouse”, neatly setting the number so as to coincide with the history of the Jews; but any other number, whether bigger or smaller, is fair and square. G-d’s wrath will be upon you all, that’s a promise!

Thus, the modern day struggle for this land by European Jewish immigrants […]

Please do forgive Mrs. Karkar, CounterPunch wouldn’t have published her article had she not filled the “reverse racism” quota.

How inconvenient the above 50% of Israeli Jews are. Those Sephardim, Jews from Islamic lands, as brown as any Arab, or even darker, if from Yemen, or outright black, if from Ethiopia. Frankly, this subject disgusts me. But I bring it here as a grand show of Leftist hypocrisy: that the problem of racism still exists today (though paling, no pun intended, in comparison to a few decades ago) is only because the Leftists do their darnedest to keep it alive for their political gain.

[…] who have no connection with Palestine other than through their religion […]

Which, even if it were true, is bad… why exactly? And, to recap the above, what connection do the “Palestinians” have with this land? Language? Arabic isn’t indigenous to this land, Hebrew is. Birth? Oh great, so they happened to be born on the Falasteen Sanjak of the Ottoman Empire, which they suddenly “remembered” has always been a country in its own right. Religion? Islam is about globalization, not national aspirations.

[…] is a colonial enterprise that seeks sovereignty for an "external Jewish population" to the exclusion of the indigenous Palestinians who, regardless of faith--Jewish, Christian or Muslim--have lived together for centuries.

This passage is important.

Among the “indigenous Palestinians”, she counts Jews. Meaning the Jews of before the “Zionist invasion”, but Jews nonetheless. But just a few words before that, she divides and conquers: the Jews coming from Europe from the late 19th century onward are “an external Jewish population”.

One frequent anti-Zionist strategy is to decouple Zionism from Judaism. It’s a handy strategy, as it serves to bolster the talking-point, “Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism!” It also wins the hearts and minds of a few Jewish dupes, such as Gilad Atzmon on the one hand and the Naturei Karta traitors on the other. But it won’t work.

What is the difference between the Jewish inhabitants of, say, the Land of Israel in the 16th century and those who came from the late 19th century onward? Only this: the latter framed it as a political movement in the contemporary paradigm (19th-century nationalism) in addition to the religious aspiration. But both knew, and held, the Land of Israel to be their land, their one and only motherland. Zionism as a political movement dates to the 19th century, true; but Zionism as a dream and aspiration and even a call to action is as old as the Babylonian Exile in 538 BCE.

Anti-Zionism necessarily involves an attack on Jewish tenets, just as does, for example, opposition to kosher slaughter. And anti-Zionism is predicated on nothing more than the belief that the Land of Israel does not belong to the Jews.

I now skip a handful of particulars for the next general claim:

Around 170,000 Palestinians remained in what became Israel, the largest number of whom resided in the Galilee area, originally a designated part of the Arab state under the Partition Plan. These Palestinians also became the victims of Israel's land grab policy. Over 438,000 acres, which was more than the total Jewish land holdings at the time, were confiscated and a further 400,000 acres were marked for confiscation.

Note that this whole passage talks about things going on within the 1949 Armistice Line, not in Judea and Samaria; before the war of 1967, which some believe to be “the root of all evil”.

I have repeated the fact that there was an Israeli Jewish majority for land concessions throughout the 1990’s. That majority could be sustained as long as it was believed that this was all about the 1967 territories. Even in the most optimistic years of that period, however, all but the most deranged, self-loathing Israeli Jews knew that the “peace process” would be finished once things started brewing over the business of 1947–9.

When people confine their talk to 1967, it still has the veneer of a solvable land dispute. It looks like: “Israel took this in 1967, the Palestinians want it back, when Israel gives back what it took in 1967 the Palestinians will have their desired state and cease all their hostilities”. As soon as the talk moves to 1947, from “40 Years of Occupation” to “60 Years of Occupation”, then the game is over. For any dispute over 1947, as opposed to 1967, is a dispute over the very State of Israel itself, not just over “some areas taken in a pre-emptive war”; and any call to “right the wrongs of 1947” is an insinuation that the very State of Israel is a wrong. All the talk of the “Palestinian Right of Return”, as it is oriented around 1947 rather than 1967, is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews, as it delegitimizes the whole Zionist project, from start to finish.

In a way, the swing of the discourse from 1967 to 1947 is a blessing, for it is waking the Jews up. Had the “Palestinians” not fired their Kassam rockets at territories within the 1949 Armistice Line after the evacuation of Gaza, then Judea and Samaria would possibly have already followed suit. Because they have demanded everything, the Israeli Jewish public now demands to give them nothing. The leaders are still clueless, and that is the only reprieve for the “Palestinians”. Beware the day when we vote to replace these dhimmis with true Zionist, Torah-believing leaders!

After Israel won the 1967 war, the total territory of Palestine came under Israel's rule.

So it’s laid out for you plainly and clearly: “Total territory of Palestine” = the territories taken in 1967 plus the territories within the 1949 Armistice Line. Just as the emblem of the “moderate” (read: more deceptive, as opposed to the more honest Hamas, as far as voicing the ultimate goal is concerned) “Palestine Liberation Organization” depicts it:

Picture: PLO emblem
Those are the desired borders. And green is for Islam. Any questions?


It annexed East Jerusalem, despite the Holy City's internationally recognised status and began implementing its Jewish settlement program with a vengeance.

Yeah, pray over 2,000 years for going back to Jerusalem to inhabit it and build it, only to have “international law” declare it to be “everyone’s holy city”—everyone, including those who no claim to it other than the founder of their religion having tied an Arabian Pegasus to a wall there, a wall that happens to be one of those of the Temple whose existence they now deny, having covered it up, literally, with their golden abomination.

G-d’s notepad is going to be very long by the time the day of reckoning comes… good thing He’s G-d, so He can handle it.

The Palestinians in Israel were increasingly aware of their precarious position politically and declared a national strike, known as "Land Day" on 30 March 1976 against Israel's continuing ruthless land expropriation. An affinity was quickly felt between Palestinians everywhere and "Land Day" was adopted as a sort of national Palestinian day which is commemorated by Palestinians and their supporters around the world each year.

And it speaks volumes of our leaders ever since 1976 that we have allowed such a fifth column to operate within us unhindered. The message must be loud, clear and backed up by action: accept this land is ours (the Jews’), or exercise your freedom to move to the 22 existing Arab states or 57 existing Muslim states. They are like rich men sitting at a long, extravagantly-laden table, yet desiring nothing but the portion of the single poor man seated there; or, to make it Biblical, like Achab coveting Naboth’s vineyard.

This awakening of national consciousness had an unequivocal political message: end the occupation and allow self-determination of the Palestinians in a sovereign state living in peace side by side with Israel.

Liar. After you have stated that the total territory of “Palestine” consists of both 1967 and 1949 territories, you cannot speak of “the Palestinians in a sovereign state living in peace side by side with Israel”.

Thirty-one years later, the message is till resonating, but the Palestinians are further away from seeing a solution than ever before.

Indeed… they are drowning in a cesspool of their own making, not willing even to accept the aid of those whom they have sworn to destroy (G-d forbid), preferring that their own children die than take it. HaShem’s meting of poetic justice for those who are too paralyzed by their self-pity and grievance-mongering to do anything constructive.

Daily, Israel is taking a bit of land here and a bit of land there, to make all of Palestine "Israel's Land".

Projection, thy name is “Palestinian”.

The problem then will be, what to do with 5 million Palestinians with no land? There are only a few possible, but criminal solutions - transfer, collective imprisonment, apartheid, and/or ethnic cleansing.

There is, we must admit, no politically correct solution—as it is with the global conflict, the War Against Islam, as a whole. The most humane solution is transfer, both from here and from the West. The Muslim adults are pretty much beyond hope; their children can still be saved from being raised on the “heritage” of suicide-bombing.

I know just about every reaction that a Leftist could display after reading my above passage. To which I respond, pre-emptively, taking a cue from a T-shirt on RightWingStuff: kiss my kumbaya, hippie! Or, less coarsely: we live in a real world, where grown-ups realize not all problems can be solved through flower-power or even diplo-speak. But you’d rather wait until everything gets looking like this:

Photo: Nancy Pelosi in a hijab
From America’s “Sodom City” to the ultimate in piety, the Dhimmicrat Party is displayed in all its glory.


Alternatively, Israel can disengage from the West Bank to the 1967 borders […]

What good would that do, Sonja? You’ve made it very clear the 1967 territories are only a part of your fictional nation’s land. Forked tongue again.

[…] or agree on a single, democratic state for all.

Ahhhh… because we know what Muslims do with democracy. Yep: they use it to vote shariah law into power (Hamas, Iraq, with eyes to Europe) once they have demographically attained the requisite majority.

I repeat, you Leftist nincompoops, although I know there’s little chance it’ll enter your thick skulls: it’s not about race, not even about ethnicity; it’s about culture. “The Age of Aquarius” will not be permitted to be sung, much less its encompassing musical (Hair) be performed, under shariah law.

Without a just solution, the struggle for Palestine's land will continue.

Having gotten this far, I find it safe to assume everyone knows what Karkar considers a “just solution”. It will continue, then. The struggle for the Land of Israel, for the Jews’ right to inhabit it without restriction, will continue. It’s still too early to abandon Zionism, I guess.

Article and fisking ends here. Just something from the Guardian to wrap it up. From Alex Stein’s article The rights and wrongs of return, from March 21, 2007, where he attempts to voice the truth that the “Palestinian Right of Return” is nothing more than a ruse “to destroy Israel through other means”. Comment is free, so the anti-Zionists get plenty to dump, and boy does some of it sound 1930-ish. But the most egregious exemplar belongs to commenter “thetrashheap”:

Ok you want to talk about rights what about a right to attack and resist occupation and land theft? How do you feel about that right?

In your morality an English man has more right to live on land because of his religion than the person whos family lived there for generations. Who decided this? The western imperial powers that gave away the palestinian land to european, american and russian immigrants. What gives them the right to decide what is moral.

Personally if somebody was driving me from my country and colonising it. I'd kill them if I could and it would matter to me if they were civilian or military. (Emphasis mine. —ZY)

Screenshot: comment by "thetrashheap" on The Guardian, March 21, 2007

A grade of A+ for honesty. For plain-spoken exposition of what an increasing portion of Western Leftists think: all Jews in all of Israel, not just in the 1967 territories but within the 1949 Armistice Line as well, and not just soldiers, not just men either, but even their women and children, deserve to be killed (G-d forbid), as they are all, without exception, colonialist settlers stealing the lands of another people. Game, set and match.

These are our enemies. Expose them. Denounce them. Destroy their credibility. Heap every amount of truthful abuse on them you can. And when wartime comes and they are found aiding the Islamic enemy’s war effort from within our jurisdiction, try them. To those who would see us dead, no quarter is to be given.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Michael said...

Great holiday reading, ZY.
Your final points, confaltion fo '47 and '67 borders, lie at the root of a blog argument I'm having with a, frankly, willfully ignorant fellow on another blog...

Ah well, some have eyes but cannot see.

April 04, 2007 2:29 PM  
Blogger ziontruth said...

Chag sameach, Michael!

How was the Seder? It looks like I got a load of spiritual power from it, because the next day, I managed to swallow the whole of Parshat Shemini in one gulp, something I'd never done before! And that was tasty.

Where's that argument you're having? Sounds interesting, and maybe I'll feel like chipping in (if you have no objection, of course).

Eat. Enjoy. Even if it's unleavened bread. [grin]

April 04, 2007 3:41 PM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

brilliant post ZY..Dhimmi Pelosi in that image says it all!
Ty for the comments at my humble abode !..:)

April 05, 2007 3:59 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Had a great Seder, with our friend the Masorti Rav up here. There were lots of little kids (who all turned out to be too shy to sing the four questions, even my Big Girl who'd been singing it all day), and we went on to 1am (yes, the kids all fell asleep and had to be carried home!).

The meal was good, the company was good, and we told each other a Pesah things we hadn't heard before.

Can you email me, and I'll send you the link?

April 05, 2007 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really dont know if these leftists believe what they write. The Fakestinians are descended from the Caananim, and the Pilishtim. Thats funny considering we Jews wiped them out in various wars. I guess the truth is irrelevant so long is it will hurt the Jews

April 06, 2007 12:32 AM  
Blogger ziontruth said...

Michael, I don't have your e-mail address, and I don't see it anywhere on your blog. Can you send it to mine (bottom of the sidebar)?

Thanks. Chag Sameach and Shabbat Shalom!

April 06, 2007 2:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home