'There's No Such Thing as Palestinians': The Ignorant Bigotry of pro-Israel Propagandists
Israeli
politicians like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich persistently deny
the existence of a Palestinian people but the historical record speaks
for itself. Smotrich and pro-Israel U.S. conservatives should listen
A protester raises a Palestinian flag at a protest in Tel Aviv, in January.Credit: Ohad Zwigenberg
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich
delivered a speech in Paris this week denying the existence of
Palestinians as a people, claiming: “There is no such thing as a
Palestinian nation. There is no Palestinian history. There is no
Palestinian language.”
Smotrich
spoke at a lectern draped with an image showing a map of Israel that
included the occupied West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. One could hardly
overlook the irony of the ultranationalist minister entertaining the notion of Palestinians as an artificial people while showing an artificial map of Israel.
Smotrich was not the first top Israeli official to deny the existence of
the Palestinian people. He was clearly echoing Golda Meir’s notorious
dictum: “There was no such thing as Palestinians,” and the more recent
remarks by Likud MP Anat Berko, in which she claimed that the
Palestinian people did not exist “because they can’t pronounce the letter P,” a statement that could double as a headline in The Onion.
In recent years, denying the national existence of Palestinians has
become a popular bigoted trope among pro-Israel politicians in the West
as well. Conservative U.S. politicians have repeatedly denied the
existence of Palestinians for political gain. For Mike Huckabee: “There’s really no such thing as the Palestinians.” For former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “There was no Palestine as a state, I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people.”
Once again, Palestinians find themselves scrambling to defend their very
existence as a people. Fortunately, the historical record is
unambiguous, and it speaks for itself: Palestinians have been known as
Palestinians since the 19th century.
The August 18, 1931 edition of the Filastin newspaper.Credit: Falastin archive
References to the Palestinians as a people date back as early as the
1870s, when American and European travelers and diplomats in Palestine
started to call the Arab inhabitants of Palestine by the name
“Palestinians.” These included the British Consul in Jerusalem, James Finn; the German Protestant missionary Ludwig Schneller; and the Irish American traveler Adela E. Orpen, all of whom dubbed the Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants of Palestine as “Palestinians.”
With Palestinian writer Khalil Baydas (1874–1949), the appellation
“Palestinian” would gain traction in Arabic. Baydas was the first Arab
to use the term “Palestinian” in the modern and national sense of the
word. In 1898, he published an Arabic translation of a popular Russian
tract, “Description of the Holy Land.” His purpose was evidently
patriotic. “The Arabic geography books on the topic were insufficient,”
he wrote in the introduction. “The people of Palestine needed a
geography book about their country.” The rest of the book is replete
with references to Palestinians as a people.
In 1911, Isa al-Isa and Yusif al-Isa, Palestinian cousins from Jaffa,
founded what would become the most popular newspaper in Palestine, for
which they chose the name Filastin. In fact, years before the founding of Filastin, multiple other Palestinians, including Ilyas Bawwad in Safed and Yusuf Siddiqi in Hebron, had tried to start a newspaper called Palestine, or Filastin, but neither attempt materialized.
In 1911, Isa al-Isa and Yusif al-Isa, Palestinian cousins from Jaffa,
founded what would become the most popular newspaper in Palestine, for
which they chose the name Filastin. In fact, years before the founding of Filastin, multiple other Palestinians, including Ilyas Bawwad in Safed and Yusuf Siddiqi in Hebron, had tried to start a newspaper called Palestine, or Filastin, but neither attempt materialized.
A sense of Palestinian identity was growing
in Palestine and beyond, and Palestinians from East to West would
rapidly embrace that identity. Between 1908 and 1914, a host of
“Palestinian” associations were established in Chicago, Beirut, and Istanbul.
The
British occupation of Palestine during World War I only accelerated the
pace of adoption of national Palestinian identity. In 1919, fearing the
rise of Zionism and Jewish immigration in Palestine, the first Arab
Palestinian Congress was held in Jerusalem. On September 3, 1921, the
newspaper Filastin declared: “We are Palestinians first, and Arabs second.”
Palestinian identity would soon spread to towns and villages across
Palestine. In 1925, the prominent Palestinian educator Khalil Sakakini
traveled through the Palestinian countryside as a representative of the
Sixth Palestinian Arab Congress delegation. He later reflected: “The Palestinian nation had been experiencing a honeymoon phase of nationalism.”
Sixth Palestinian National Congress, Jaffa, October 1925.Credit: Institute of Palestine Studies.
Even Zionist leaders were forced to acknowledge the existence of a
Palestinian national identity. In 1923, Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote that “the
Arab people of Palestine as a whole will never sell that fervent
patriotism that they guard so jealously.” In 1929, David Ben-Gurion
warned that a Palestinian Arab national movement was on the rise.
Thanks to the Great Palestinian Uprising, which lasted from 1936 to 1939, the term Palestinian was simply everywhere in print by the late 1930s. Many Palestinian writers, for instance, were keen to emphasize
that “non-Palestinian” families, notably the Sarsuqs, sold “Palestinian
land” to Zionists. Arab writers also invoked the term to praise
“Palestinians” who played
a key role in the prewar Arab literary movement, or those who joined
the Great Arab Revolt, led by Emir Faysal I during World War I.
All this shows that the Arabs of Palestine
have been known as Palestinians since the nineteenth century, and have
identified themselves as Palestinians ever since.
So
why do racist propagandists like Smotrich constantly feel the urge to
deny the existence of the Palestinians? Because the very notion of a
Palestinian people is a constant reminder that the Zionist enterprise
was founded on the erasure of the national identity of Palestinians. But
history teaches us that the Palestinian people existed long before the
creation of the State of Israel, and indeed, even before the modern
Zionist movement.
Seraj Assi is the author of 'The History and Politics of the Bedouin.'
I en artikkel i Haaretz 12. mars analyseres den ferske israelske finansminister Bezalel Smotrich. (HELE artikkelen nederst under Kilde):
"Israel's 'Evangelical' Jewish Fundamentalist, Bezalel Smotrich, Comes to Washington"
Forfatteren betegner Smotrich som ""Evangelical", Jewish Fundamentalist". Som baserer sin tro og gjerninger på tusener år gamle jødiske skrifter.
EDIT 30. mai 2023 Artikkel i Jerusalem Post , se Ny Info: "What is Smotrich's frightening, suicidal plan for Israel's future? - opinion"
"The signs are a clear warning to those who would stand in the way of annexation or attempt to enforce the law in opposition to the messianic, settler vision."
Artikkelen 30. mai 2023 bekrefter Smotrich sin plan som en "messianic settler vision". Med den sentrale rolle Smotrich er gitt av Netanyahu i regjeringen må dette også være Netanyahu sin plan.
Israel's 'Evangelical' Jewish Fundamentalist, Bezalel Smotrich, Comes to Washington
Rightly
facing a cold shoulder from many American Jews, Israel's finance
minister advocates a brand of Jewish fundamentalism that not only
resembles extreme Evangelical Christianity, but which poses a unique
threat to Israel’s democracy – and to Palestinians' welfare
Israel's
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, known for his extremist views and
literal interpretation of the Bible, is in Washington this week.Credit: Credit: Photos: Tomer Appelbaum; Ingimage. Artwork by Anastasia Shub
As Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich heads to Washington today, his statements in support of “erasing”
the Palestinian village of Hawara still echo off the walls of the State
Department and numerous Jewish organizations, all of whom have made it
clear that they will not meet with him during his visit.
Even
the right-leaning AIPAC will not greet Israel’s finance minister. His
awkward and halfhearted attempts to backtrack only cemented that this
Israeli government is – and America's reception of it – is like none we
have ever seen.
Despite the coalition parties' differences, they have presented a monolithic eagerness to weaken Israel's judicial system,
dismantle the checks and balances on power and expand the role of
religion in the public sphere. More than half its seats are taken by
religiously observant Jews, and while most past Israeli governments had
ultra-Orthodox representation, none have had the religious Zionist
public represented solely by hardline fundamentalists, nor did any,
ever, have Kahanist ministers.
The particular brand of fundamentalist Judaism that the extremists
currently in power espouse is different from that of ultra-Orthodoxy.
Ultra-Orthodoxy’s piety is dedicated to community and continuity, that
is, to maintaining their cocoon of like-minded, meticulously observant
Jews, following what they believe is the path of their forefathers and
taking care that their children do the same. Theirs is a fundamentalism
interested less in theology and more in sociology, and thus also capable
of pragmatism, usually with an added wink and a Yiddish pun.
In contrast, Bezalel Smotrich and National
Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir display a fundamentalism resembling
that of extreme Evangelical Christianity. It involves a literal
interpretation of the Bible, which its adherents use to transform the
world around them, both politically and socially. This type of
fundamentalism is committed to zealous authenticity in belief and
practice, and, in maintaining a dogmatic understanding of tradition,
shows little aptitude toward pragmatism.
This fundamentalism poses a unique threat to Israel’s democracy – and to the wellbeing of Palestinians.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (left) and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in the Knesset, in December.Credit: Ohad Zwigenberg
In 2017, Smotrich presented what he called the "decisiveness plan"
– or the "subjugation plan"; the translation can go both ways. In it,
he proposed to offer the Palestinians – in Israel and in the occupied
territories alike – three options: surrender and agree to become
residents with reduced voting rights, emigrate, or resist and be
subjected to the full force of the Israeli military.
In an essay that year in the right-wing publication Hashiloach, Smotrich
admitted that this plan is “lacking in democratic characteristics,” but
claims it is the only realistic path that Israel can take. What he does
not mention, though, is that this plan and is not based on geopolitical
assessments, but on an ancient Talmudic text.
In a speech he delivered a year before he published his plan, Smotrich recounted a tale
in which the prophet Joshua, who came to conquer the Promised Land,
sent messages to the people living there offering them the same options.
Smotrich claimed that "There is one absolute and correct truth… This is
the basis for the approach of Joshua when he entered the Land, which I
seek to adopt even today. The foundation of our absolute truths is faith
in the Torah... The Torah of Moses is the only base on which we must
establish the belief in the righteousness of the way and the fighting
spirit of the Israel Defense Forces.”
Israel’s new finance minister displays the most basic characteristics of
fundamentalist religiosity: a perception of history by which what was
true thousands of years ago is also valid today; an ambition to shape
contemporary life according to ancient ways, to thrust the past into the
present; and a literalist understanding of scripture which reduces a
rich religious tradition into a rigid and simplistic framework. These
produce a one-dimensional submission to the authority of the Holy
Scriptures.
He has absolutely no qualms about his beliefs. Just six months ago, during the previous Israeli government, Smotrich shouted across the Knesset floor to the Arab MKs: “You’re only here by mistake, because Ben Gurion didn’t finish the job and throw you out in 1948.”
And he is not alone. Ben-Gvir is a longtime devotee of the teachings of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, a vile racist
whose Kach movement was designated a terrorist organization by both the
United States and Israel. Ben-Gvir himself was twice convicted for
supporting a terrorist organization due to his activities with the
group.
In his books, Kahane used the very same account of Joshua to justify the
future expulsion of Israeli Arabs, which he repeatedly claimed must be
implemented. The tale plays a part in the movement’s theology, which is
also grounded in a fundamentalist interpretation of Jewish tradition. In
the past, Ben-Gvir explicitly said that Jews must “Drive out the Arab
enemy,” and though he has recently insisted that he no longer thinks so,
he claimed just five years ago that “every word of Kahane's is relevant
to today’s reality.”
Palestinian
Omar Khalifa, 27, inspects his car last week which was attached by
Israeli settlers while he was in it with his family, in Huwara, the West
Bank.Credit: RANEEN SAWAFTA/ REUTERS
Just as Kahane insisted that non-Jews should not be able to vote in
Israel, Smotrich also plans to reduce Israeli Arabs to the status of
non-voting subjects. As he said in a private conversation in 2017,
Palestinians will be relegated to the status of “resident aliens,”
because, as he explained then, “according to Jewish law there must
always be some inferiority.”
This kind of dogmatic, selective
interpretation of Jewish tradition, linked with the will – and now the
power – to turn it into the law of the land, is something that Israeli
citizens are encountering for the first time in the highest echelons of
their government. The horror that has struck many of the Israelis who
are witnessing it is a catalyst for the mass demonstrations that have
engulfed the country over the last two months.
The hundreds of thousands of people are protesting
what they conceive as a threat to Israeli democracy and the integrity
of Jewish tradition alike. Hopefully, the cold shoulder that Smotrich is
receiving from the United States is a sign that the international
community is taking note as well.
Tomer Persico is a research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute and a Rubinstein Fellow at Reichman University. Twitter: @TomerPersico
"Jewish Law Above All: Recordings Reveal Far-right Knesset Member’s Plan to Turn Israel Into a Theocracy"
"Deputy
Minister Avi Maoz is establishing a government agency that aims to
eradicate Israel’s secular identity. Dozens of recordings, speeches and
articles by Maoz and his mentor, Rabbi Zvi Thau, reveal their plan to bring Israel ‘closer to redemption’
Artikkelen er bak betalingsmur. Men har mange kommentarer som belyser temaet.
2) Artikkel i Jerusalem Post 12. mars 2023
"The settler pogrom in Huwara was anti-Zionist - opinion"
‘Zionism must be freed from its shell’
"One
of the key ideologues is Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg who, while recognizing
the importance of secular Zionism as having created the state, believes
that the time has come for a new Israel to emerge based wholly on Jewish
law and without any democratic framework. In order for this to happen,
Ginsburg uses the metaphor of a “nutcracker” which will break the outer
shell releasing the soft fruit from the shackles of the secular state
allowing the formation of a new Torah-based monarchy."
Om faren Yosef Burg, se Wiki og minnesord ved hans død i 1999 i LA Times under Kilde.
Om sønnen: Avraham Burg, se Wiki og søkeresultater i Haaretz under Kilde.
Faren grunnla det som senere ble "National Religious Party", der religion og politikk ble forent. Etterhvert er dette blitt det politisk/religiøse hjem for neste generasjon av ekstreme settlere.
Sønnen Avraham Burg har mer og mer gått til venstre i israelsk politikk. Er det han som har sett på nært hold hvor religions-nasjonalisme fører hen i politikken?
"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is blocking the
Biden administration from sharing evidence with the International
Criminal Court in The Hague gathered by American intelligence agencies
about Russian atrocities in Ukraine, according to current and former
officials briefed on the matter.
American
military leaders oppose helping the court investigate Russians because
they fear setting a precedent that might help pave the way for it to
prosecute Americans. The rest of the administration, including
intelligence agencies and the State and Justice Departments, favors
giving the evidence to the court, the officials said.
President Biden has yet to resolve the impasse, officials said." ..................
Hva skal man si når USAs forsvarsdepartement beskytter mulige russiske krigsforbrytere?
"92 Flights From Israeli Base Reveal Arms Exports to Azerbaijan"
"Haaretz
investigation reveals dozens of cargo flights from Baku to Israeli
airstrip used for export of explosives ■ Israel sells Azerbaijan
weaponry worth billions – and, per sources, receives oil and access to
Iran ■ Tensions between Azerbaijan and both Iran and Armenia have
ratcheted up recently"
Artikkel i Jerusalem Post 10. mars 2023:
"Azerbaijan envoy to Israel: You cannot use our airfields to attack Iran"
Azerbaijani Ambassador-Designate to
Israel Mukhtar Mammadov denied a report by Haaretz that the country has
prepared an airfield to assist "Israel."
"10% of Israeli Jews think terrorist Baruch Goldstein is a 'national hero' - poll" "Baruch Goldstein was a Jewish settler and terrorist who massacred 29 Palestinians in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994. Some Israelis still support him." (JPost 6. mars 2023).
10% synes han er en nasjonal helt. 27% "kjenner noen som sympatiserer med ham"
Min kommentar 1. mars til denne saken i Haugesundsa Avis:
Einar Tho: "Jeg vil heller ha det godt en god stund, enn vondt lenge"
Min kommentar:
Jan Marton Jensenerror(redigert)
Det er sentrale etiske temaer redaktøren i Haugesunds Avis her tar opp til diskusjon.
Litt spisset: Er der en ALDERSGRENSE for når man skal bruke store offentlige midler på helsen til folk? Går denne ved 90 år? DET inntrykket KAN man få ved å lese redaktørens betraktninger.
Og da ledes man inn på problemstillingen:
NÅR det må prioriteres ... HVEM skal man prioritere når der er knappe ressurser i helsevesenet?
DESSVERRE er ikke redaktør Tho prinsipiell.
For det SENTRALE spørsmålet dreier seg om: MENNESKEVERDET.
Har det med ALDER å gjøre? ELLER har det med RESSURSBRUK å gjøre?
Må de GAMLE og SVAKE stille seg bakerst i køen når ressurser skal prioriteres?
Hvis dette er inntrykket man får av innlegg fra leger fra Helse Fonna og fra HA's redaktør ... da har vi en stor etisk problemstilling å ta stilling til:
- Hvordan forholder vi oss til menneskeverdet for de svake og ressurskrevende?
Det er nødvendig å belyse denne prinsipielle premissen før man diskuterer videre. For ellers går vi mot et sorteringssamfunn. Er det dit vi vil?
