There are nuances within the umbrella category of anti-Israel sentiment. I’ve talked with people who think that Israel is a white, European colonialist nation but who still believe that a Jewish state should exist; I’ve talked to Jews who think the idea of a Jewish state is ridiculous; I’ve talked with people who love Israel but hate what it’s doing, and I’ve talked with people who hate everything about the state.
Anti-Zionists and Zionists alike come in many shapes and sizes. However, at the end of the day the loudest opinion on campus falls under the umbrella category of anti-Zionist or anti-Israel. In addition to being independently anti-Zionist, campus activists tend to lump divestment from Israel along with important issues such as divestment from the American prison system and the fossil fuel industry, which means that to support one of those issues is often to support all three. Although the latter two are undeniably contentious and important issues, their importance does not make them equivalent and it certainly does not place them in the same category as the highly complex state of Israel. This conflation of issues creates a paradigm in which the existence of the state of Israel and the various stances of the Zionist movement are in direct opposition to human rights, equality, the environmentalist movement, and efforts against the institutionalized racism that is rampant in the United States. This is is reductive, counter-productive, and a real shame: it seems to me that the Wesleyan community could actually make a positive contribution to changing the dialogue.
Let’s first stipulate two things: the Palestinians aren’t leaving the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and neither are the Jews. They’re both fated to live there, and for obvious reasons they can’t live together right now. They need a space to develop their own nationalities apart from each other. People advocating for the destruction of Israel—because that is in fact what ultimately so many people aligned with the BDS movement seem to want: the actual elimination of a United Nations-recognized state—are advocating for a situation that would only lead to bloodshed and endless war. Here at Wesleyan, we could treat this issue as the complicated problem it is. As students at a liberal arts university, we are taught to see grays, to see nuance, to see tragedy, and seek solutions. We could change the conversation around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and make it an actual dialogue with people on both sides of the divide listening to each other and learning from each other. A reflexive response (Israel is unequivocally bad) is by definition a thoughtless one, and we are not here to be thoughtless, we are here to learn and be critical. Why not apply that critical and nuanced mindset to Israel?
From what I have gathered from my semesters on campus so far, the majority of Wesleyan students (or perhaps just the people with the loudest voices) seem to believe that Israel is an apartheid state, that Israel enthusiastically oppresses the Palestinian people, and that Israel is, generally speaking, a racist and colonialist nation. There does not seem to be a lot of room for doubt when it comes to these opinions, and I have encountered strong opposition when offering up an opposing opinion about the Jewish state. Two things about this stance are alarming to me. The first is that from my perspective as a liberal Zionist, this dominant view of Israel seems harmful and misguided. The second is a more general fear about the educational climate on this campus: The lack of dialogue, of critical thinking, and the conformity that seems to govern this discussion suggest an anti-intellectualism that should be alarming to everyone on a campus devoted to the pursuit of a liberal education.
Why, of all the people in the world, should the Jews not have a state in their ancestral homeland? Most people seem comfortable with the idea of the Poles having Poland and the Japanese getting Japan, but there is something about the Jews that makes some people take exception to the idea of us having a national homeland rooted in our history and tradition. I would like to propose that this is just anti-Semitism: a manifestation of hostility against the Jews cloaked in the acceptable terms of anti-Zionism. This is not the only bizarre thing about people’s focus on Israel. As I said, I believe that the Palestinians should have their own state just as the Jews should have their own state (an idealistic stance to be sure, but perhaps one worth having). The Palestinians and the Jews, however, are small peoples and not the only ones in the world struggling for territory.
“Anti-Zionists” care about the Palestinian claim to this controversial strip of land theoretically for larger reasons of justice and human rights. There is a whole movement dedicated to boycotting, imposing sanctions on, and divesting from the state of Israel in order to halt what people perceive as Israel’s crimes. Fine…but what about Tibet? The Tibetan people have lost their national homeland to Chinese occupation and been oppressed and abused by that nation, but the same people who are BDS-focused “anti-Zionists” and are so focused on human rights do not seem to care. The same could be said for the Kurds in Turkey and many other peoples throughout the world. These self-proclaimed activists on the side of human rights, however, are fixated on—or in stronger and more accurate terms—obsessed with Israel and its actions. It would be almost flattering if it wasn’t so anti-Semitic.
I believe that the Palestinians should have a state just as the Jews should have a state. I think that the Israeli government should stop the spread of settlers, do its best to ameliorate living conditions in Gaza, and eventually give fuller autonomy to Gaza and the West Bank. I also agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, who said that “Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect her right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs. Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality.” It is possible to think both things, to have sympathy for both Palestinians and Israelis, but I do not see this moderate view on campus.
Goldberg is a member of the class of 2019.
43 Comments
OhioAhmad
Zionists can self determine all they want….as long as it doesn’t involve taking away self determination of others(which is what is happening in Palestine).
Zionist talking points have devolved into 11th century Crusader justifications. The Crusaders are less removed from the holy land does that mean their rights trump those of the indigenous Palestinians?
No way.
And what about Tibet? Well Tibet doesn’t get massive US tax subsidies and unconditional protection at the UN. And Tibet is not armed with nuclear weapons aimed at its neighboring countries.
I could continue but the facade behind the lies and misinformation of Zionism is clear.
BDS is a nonviolent expression against human and civil rights.
It’s funny how allowing Palestinians equality in their homelands is always described as the ‘destruction’ of Israel.
Sorry but I believe in equality for all over a religiously based nationality.
garyfouse
Question: Three thousand years ago, Jerusalem was the capital of what?
Answer: Israel.
Question: When was there ever a nation called Palestine?
Answer: Never.
BDS is non-violent-even though it uses tactics of intimidation and supports those in the ME who use tactics of terror against Israeli civilians?
In addition, your last sentence is a joke. This entire conflict is not over land but religion. The Muslims in the ME will never accept a Jewish state in their midst. It is anti-Semitic to its core as reflected in the very education that children get in the PA and Gaza depicting Jews as sub-human.
moosehorn
Question: When was the last time the Jews ruled Palestine?
Answer: Not in the las 2000 years.
If Israel stops its human rights violations, its land grab and its apartheid regime, allowing Palestinian self-determination , and end its brutal military occupation, there could be a chance for peace in the the region.
Zev_disqus
Why do you demand that Israel change its ways but you don’t make similar demands on Palestinians?
moosehorn
What more do you expect from the oppressed Palestinians?
Zev_disqus
Grievances, grievances…
Arafat
As Nikolai Sennels said, a Muslim never sees himself as the cause of his own actions. It is all external reality and everything is the will of Allah or the fault of the Big Bad Infidel. Hence the eternal victimhood status, the rage, the search for external culprits, hence the jihad. You can’t expect anything else from people who are incapable of taking a long hard look at themselves and who have been told since the cradle that this look is only reserved for the infidels.
garyfouse
Maybe we should give it back to the Ottoman Empire. Do you think the Turks would want it?
I find it comical how the pro-Palestinian crowd talks about Israel’s human rights abuses while ignoring the same by Gaza’s Hamas and the PA not to mention the rest of the Arab world. Israel may not be perfect, but they are light years ahead of the Arab world when it comes to human rights.
The truth is the Palestinians could have had their state in 1948, but the Arab world refused the accept the partition and went to war. If they would really make peace with Israel there could be peace. But they want it all-from the river to the sea. That is hardly a call for a peace agreement.
moosehorn
Because of the support of the likes of you, because of Zionist leaders like Sharon, Nut&yahoo, Lieberman ect.., because of the continuous land grab and the behaviour of the vermin settlers, because of the hypocrisy of the Zionist occupier, PEACE IS TOO FAR TO REACH.
Arafat
Are Muslims allowed to be friends with Christians, Jews or other non-Muslims?
Unbelievers are described by Muhammad (in the Quran) as “the vilest of animals” and “losers.” Christians and Jews are hated by Allah to the extent that they are destined for eternal doom as a result of their beliefs. It would make no sense for Muhammad to then recommend that they be taken as friends by Muslims. In fact, the Quran plainly orders believers not to take unbelievers as friends.
moosehorn
Yes, a trained immoral hasbarist like you is filthier than the vilest of animals.
Arafat
Moosehorn proves Carlin correct…
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
garyfouse
Careful, Moosehorn. You are talking like Goebbels again.
Arafat
Quran (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
Quran (5:80) – “You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.” Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.
Quran (3:28) – “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them…” This last part means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit. Renowned scholar Ibn Kathir states that “believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly.”
Quran (3:118) – “O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.”This verse not only warns Muslims not to take non-Muslims as friends, but suggests that that the rest of the world is out to get them and can’t be trusted.
Quran (9:23) – “O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers” Even family members are not to be taken as friends if they do not accept Islam. (There are harsher interpretations of this verse. The same (ninth) sura advocates “slaying the unbeliever wherever ye find them”).
Quran (53:29) – “Therefore shun those who turn away from Our Message and desire nothing but the life of this world.”
Quran (3:85) – “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.”
Quran (3:10) – “(As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah, and these it is who are the fuel of the fire.” Those who do not believe in Muhammad are but fuel for the fire of Hell (also 66:6, 2:24. 21:98).
Quran (7:44) – “The Companions of the Garden will call out to the Companions of the Fire: “We have indeed found the promises of our Lord to us true: Have you also found Your Lord’s promises true?” They shall say, “Yes”; but a crier shall proclaim between them: “The curse of Allah is on the wrong-doers” Muslims in heaven will amuse themselves by looking down on non-Muslims in Hell and mocking them while they are being tortured (see >22:19-22.
Quran (1:5-7) – “Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray” This is a prayer that Muslims are supposed to repeat each day. “Those who earn Thine anger” refers to Jews; “those who go astray” refers to Christians (see Bukhari (12:749)).
Arafat
Muslim (1:417) – Taken to mean that one’s own relatives should not be taken as friends if they are not Muslim.
Muslim (2167) – “Allah’s Messenger said: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.”
Abu Dawud (41:4815) – “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend.”
Abu Dawud (41:4832) – The Messenger of Allah [said] “Do not keep company with anyone but a believer and do not let anyone eat your food but one who is pious.”
Bukhari (59:572) – “O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you.”
Ishaq 262 – “Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Quran forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse”
Ishaq 252 – The story of a young man who converts to Islam after hearing Muhammad. He then tells his own father that he can no longer have anything to do with him because, “I have become a Muslim and follow the religion of Muhammad.” (To maintain a relationship with his son, the father “converts” as well). This is an important passage because it establishes that shunning is based merely on the status of non-Muslims as unbelievers, not on their behavior toward Muslims. In this case, the father desperately loved his son and meant him no harm.
Arafat
Cultural superiority is a doctrine of Islam that actually has a name; it’s called Jahiliyya – and literally means thatany culture without Islam is “ignorant and stupid.” Stunning bigotry by Islamic scholars is so casual that it often goes unnoticed. For example, a 2007 fatwa responds to a question on whether Muslims can swim in a pool in which a non-Muslim has swam:
If the size of the public pool is more than 225 sq ft (20.9 m2) then it is considered a large body of water and will not become impure by non-Muslims swimming in it. If the pool is less then 225 sq ft (20.9 m2), then if the non-Muslim had taken a bath before swimming, the water will be pure since there is no impurity on him. If he did not take a bath before swimming and it is certain that there was impurity on him before he swam, then the pool is impure and all the water must be removed and refilled with clean water.
Even though they are explicitly kufr (unbelievers, Quran 5:17, 4:44-59) Jews and Christians are given special status in the Quran. So, if Muhammad warned believers against taking them as friends, then it surely is not permissible for Muslims to befriend atheists or those of other religions.
Some Muslims interpret this to mean that they should not even act friendly toward nonbelievers; fortunately, many do not. Islamic TV preacher Sheikh Muhammad Hassan says that a Muslim is not permitted even to smile at a non-Muslim. A fatwa from Islam Q&A permits infidels to be dealt with “in a kind manner in the hope that they might become Muslim,” but it warns Muslims against taking unbelievers as “sincere friends” (The same site also encourages Muslims to “stop keeping company with Christians and replace them with Muslim friends”).
The book,al-Wala’ wa’l-Bara’,by Shaykh Muhammad Saeed al-Qahtani, lists 20 “types of alliances” with unbelievers that are forbidden to Muslims. These include “taking the disbelievers as friends,” “trusting the disbelievers,” “drawing near” to them and even living among them.
Some Muslims are embarrassed by verse 5:51 and go to elaborate lengths to modify its intent by interpreting the word “friend” as “guardian” or “protector” – which are two lesser translations of the Arabic word. According to these apologists, the verse is referring to a Muslim’s allegiance to a non-Muslim government (which is not all that comforting either).
However, the word awliyaa is used in verse 5:51 instead of other words that would be more direct if the meaning were “protector” – such as hamin. In fact, the politically correct translations that do use the word “protector” turn right around and use the word “friend” in other places for the same Arabic word – such as in verse 10:62.
In fact, verse 10:62 proves that the word awliyaa truly means “friend” in the Quran and not “guardian” because it refers to associates of Allah (translated “friends of Allah”). If the word meant “guardian” then it would mean that Allah has guardians, which is blasphemy.
Apologists sometimes point to verse 60:8-9 which says that Allah doesn’t necessarily forbid showing kindness to unbelievers, but to shun the ones “who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out.” This is an obvious reference to the Meccans, whose leaders expelled Muhammad and his handful of followers from their city (following his declaration of war against them).
The verse from Sura 60 was narrated shortly after the Muslims arrived in Medina, when it was necessary for the numerically disadvantaged Muslims to build alliances with non-Muslims in order to survive. However, the other verses are from Suras 9 and 5 – narrated at a later time and under much different circumstances, when Muslims had power. These verses expand the scope of unfriendliness to include anyone who is not Muslim.
Modern apologists such as Jamal Badawi try to cloud the straightforward interpretation of verse 5:51 by pointing out that Muslims are allowed to take non-Muslims as marriage partners, thus implying friendship. In truth, verse 2:221 explicitly forbids Muslims from marrying unbelievers, even though verse 5:5 allows it (Allah’s change of mind corresponded somewhat curiously with Muhammad’s own desire to marry a non-Muslim woman). Yusuf Ali reconciles the contradiction by saying that non-Muslims wives are “expected” to become Muslim.
In any event, only Muslim men are allowed to marry outside the faith. The women they marry relinquish control over their own lives, even to the extent that they cannot teach their faith to their own children, who must be raised Muslim. The non-Muslim woman also agrees to a lifetime of sexual servitude, and may be beaten if she does not submit.
This certainly doesn’t sound like friendship to the rest of us. Moreover, if ‘interfaith’ marriage is about friendship between peers and not domination, then why are Muslim women banned from marrying non-Muslim men?
On the whole, Islam is very clear in teaching that there is no equality between believers and unbelievers, and hence no basis for friendship, which is a relationship between peers. Those who do not profess Muhammad are intended to exist in subjugation to those who do, then spend eternity in Hell. This does not preclude Muslims from acting friendly toward others, of course, but it does not constitute friendship as it is generally understood in the modern world.
garyfouse
I take it the fatwa OKed European swimming pools because they have become the sites of many recent sexual assaults since all the refugees and migrants started pouring in.
garyfouse
Vermin? Really? You know that a word the Nazis used when referring to Jews. You are showing your true colors.
Arafat
Yes, garyfouse, moosehorn would have been a brown shirt.
Arafat
Official PA television—the PA’s PBS—airs programs that feature children as young as six reciting anti-Semitic and violent poems. Just months ago, for example, a little girl recited a poem that claimed, (and I quote) “[Christians and Jews] are inferior, cowardly, and despised.” Three days earlier, on a different program, another young girl insisted that (and I quote), “Our wars are for the Al Aqsa Mosque, and our enemy, Zion, is a Satan with a tail.”
This is apparently what passes for “educational television” under the Palestinian Authority.
From cradles to kindergarten classrooms; from the grounds of summer camps to the stands of football stadiums, messages of extremism are everywhere in Palestinian society.
In the international community, there is no shortage of individuals to lecture Israel about what it must do for peace. Yet these same “human rights advocates” stutter, mumble and lose their voices when it comes to criticizing Palestinian incitement.
Ignoring words and thoughts of hate does no favors to the Palestinian people. It does no favors to families who seek to build better lives for themselves and their children. And, perhaps most importantly, it does no favors to Palestinian leaders who advance the language of peace instead of the dogmas of hate.
Laying the groundwork for a stable peace in our region will not happen overnight. But those who would like to foster better relations between Israelis and Palestinians must start by speaking out against incitement in Palestinian society. The next generation—both Israeli and Palestinian—deserve no less.
moosehorn
Nice try, a hasbara troll throwing the blame back on the Palestinians and those who support their cause.
Who are you trying to fool, one can just visit any of the pro-Zionists sites (those that delete any comment criticizing Israel, or rather block them out) and see the extreme hate spewed by the vermin posting on them, and even the incitement to annihilate the Palestinians!!!
Arafat
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There are two forms:
Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true as it relates to the Muslim identity.
Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Tawriya – Intentionally creating a false impression.
Muruna – ‘Blending in’ by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
OhioAhmad
you do realize there was never a place called Israel until it landed on the Palestinians in 1948 by force.
It has always been called Palestine. The Brits called it the Mandate of Palestine. And long before the Ottomans were around Palestine has been known as Palestine.
You do your hasbara cause a great disservice by not knowing about the name Palestine.
And you look quite arrogant trying to spread lies and ignorance.
The occupation of Palestine by Zionist settlers is mainly about land. And very little to do about religion.
If it was then religious groups like Palestinian Hamas would have been around a lot longer. But this ain’t the case. Anybody with a basic understanding of Israeli atrocities in Palestine knows this basic knowledge. That is why the Palestinian PLO started and has continued to be a secular organization. Early on it was the leftists and communists ; both of which tend to be non-religious.
There is a reason why you hate Muslims so much(despite the fact that most Palestinian are non-religious ).
Maybe your parents taught you to hate other’s so you don’t feel so bad about yourself when you steal their lands and cause violence.
garyfouse
Ahmed.
Stop it. You know nothing about me or my parents or whom I hate or don’t hate. The Palestinians lost any support they might have had from me when they resorted to terrorism back in the 60s because their Arab brethren could not conquer Israel by force of arms. They have also killed a fair number of Americans during these past decades including when they took over the Achille Lauro. I also find it hard to support people who were dancing on 9-11.
I am well aware of the origins of the word, Palestine (Romans). I don’t need your history lesson.
Terrorism will never win the Palestinians support except for those who are too weak kneed to stand up to it (ie Europe and the American left). Likewise using Brown Shirt tactics on US campuses will not win you support among the American public.
OhioAhmad
By your reasoning the newly minted country of Israel would have lost your support by the terrorism they provoked and committed during the Nakba, King David hotel bombing , and Swedish ambassador assassination to name a few.
Gary it is time for you to stop it.
People are learning the truth and it is well documented the amount of terror committed , and continues to be committed by Israelis.
This isn’t about terrorism his is about the rights and aspirations of Palestinians.
Don’t forget the Boston tea party and American Revolution had elements of terrorism.
Nobody has ever been given freedom and liberty without fighting of the shackles of oppression and Palestinians have been fighting for years.
For some strange reason you refuse to see this.
garyfouse
Stop it. The only thing the Palestinians are fighting to to kill or drive every last Jew out of the region. Oppression? They are oppressed by Hamas and PA.
And to compare, the acts of terror and suicide bombings to the Tea Party and the American Revolution is a sick joke.
Arafat
The Yazidi in Iraq and the Christian Copts in Egypt are not “settlers” and “occupiers;” neither are the Jews in Israel. They are victims of a common enemy that seems to want a Middle East free of non-Muslims.
moosehorn
Before the invasion of the Zionists, Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed peacefully in the Middle East.
Arafat
That’s interesting because the Jews lived in the Arabian Peninsula for more than a thousand years before Mohammed was even born.
+++
“The Muslim ignorance of history is just jaw dropping.”
Zealots don’t care very much about reality.
garyfouse
Of course-as long as the non-Muslims accepted 2nd class dhimmi status.
Don’t you realize you are debating with people who have done their homework?
OhioAhmad
You mean like when Israeli terrorists ethnically cleansed 90% of Palestinians in the 1948 Nakba?
Without regard to whether they were Christian, Muslim,Druze, Samaritans or non-religious Palestinians?
you sound quite confused and islamophobic?
Why do you hate Muslims so much?
Btw most Palestinians are not religious Muslims
#ReadABookOnPalestine
Arafat
Oh, so Hamas is not religious? Gosh, and all this time Hamas has been telling us their devout Sunni Islamists. And it goes without saying that Gaza is by far the most popular political {sic} organization of the Palestinians.
+++
And as far as your fantasy world about ethnic cleansing you have your head screwed on backwards. The Muslim Palestinian population inside Israel has grown tremendously since 1948. And many of these people are successful doctors, lawyers, businessmen, politicians, professors, you name it. Where there is real ethnic cleansing is in every single Muslim country in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, of course being the best example of this, for in Saudi Arabia there is not one single non-Muslim citizen. But if one digs deeper one discovers that in every single country (other than Israel) the indigenous people have been or are currently being ethnically cleansed by Muslims. Of course this is also true in Africa and southern Asia where Muslims are relentlessly killing off the Hindus, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, atheists, gays, and all other people.
OhioAhmad
Hamas doesn’t run the West Bank of Palestine, or East Jerusalem or the occupied 1948 territories or any of the refugee camps.
And you do realize that Hamas was democratically elected by a George Bush run election that was supervised by Jimmy Carter in 2005 and 2006?
Did you eat your racist cereal today you seem a little off then usual?
Arafat
Achmed, they make meds for delusional psychotics like you.
Tom Guttmann
I think the very fact that you think that Tibet is the party that should be criticized is a magnificent proof of your general ignorance towards other similar issues in the world and an overrepresentation of the “Israel-Palestine” Conflict. Tibet is the occupied territory and the aggressor/occupying force is China. China most certainly has nuclear weapons and in the case of China I am pretty sure they are prepared for hostile military interaction against most countries with gravity on this planet/their weapons are pointing their neighbors.
Also apparent from your comment is a total negligence of any ambiguity involved in the conflict. E.g. your claim that Palestinians should have rights is nothing that generally speaks against an Israeli state, it is a detail that should be voiced and that is actually voiced and also supported by many if not by most pro-Israel people. There is no general rule that the existence of Israel is a fundamental reason for Palestinians absence of rights and in fact any Israeli citizen with Palestinian/Arab ancestry has similar rights to an Israeli and further has far more rights than any Person under rule of any of the Arab countries surrounding Israel. I think what would be far more reasonable than just pointing fingers to one or the other direction is to see both parties involvement and accept the very fact of a status quo in which both people have fundamental interest in existing within the same territory and to try to come up with a solution which ideally serves both sides to best possible extent or at least discuss proposals how to get there. Anything else is just useless. Same applies imo to BDS which does not work on a vision or on developing a platform that develops and discusses potential solutions to the problem at hand but just makes maximum claims and utilizes a tool which is totally ineffective and only serves to divide parties involved.
OhioAhmad
Not only is nothing you say true, but we Americans definitely aren’t giving China weapons and money and blind defense at the UN like we do with Israel.
Palestinians have a right to self defend against foreign illegal armed invaders
Wesalum78
I find it amusing that someone tries to find middle ground and the first 2 comments are from the extreme left and right. OA doesn’t seem to think that the Palestinians or rest of the Arab world contributed to their plight and GF wants to debate 3,000 year old history. I’m with Talia!!
garyfouse
When dealing with terrorists, I don’t look for a middle ground.
Arafat
The “Palestinians” are illegal colonist-settlers from Arabia illegally occupying the Jewish homeland of Judea.
moosehorn
A hasbara troll rewriting history!!! or rather trying to replace historical facts with myth narratives.
Arafat
The losses so far include:
The statues of Mulla ‘Uthman al-Mawsili (1845-1923), a famous musician and poet, of a woman carrying an urn, and of Abu Tammam (788-845), author of the celebrated Hamasa, one of the greatest literary compilations ever made in Arabic.
The destruction of the greatly venerated tomb of ‘Ali ibn al-Athir al-Jazari (1160-1233), a major
landmark that had stood in the centre of Mosul for centuries. Ibn al-Athir is celebrated as the author of The Complete History, one of the most important histories of Islam ever written.
The Islamic State’s destruction of the Tomb of Yunus (Jonah) Mosque, which was blown to pieces along with all its contents. Even before the explosion, fighters took sledgehammers to ancient tombstones in the building. The mosque was of importance not just to the Muslims of the city, but as a place of pilgrimage for Jews and Christians. St. George’s Monastery church, one of the oldest in the region, has also gone forever.
In Kirkuk, the Islamic State has destroyed the tomb of the Prophet Daniel, and in Nineveh, the ancient ruins of which lie across the River Tigris from Mosul, sprawl damaged
archaeological ruins.
In Mosul, the 13th-century shrine of Imam Awn al-Din — with a stunning vaulted ceiling, designed to
resemble a honeycomb, inside a pyramid-shaped tower on the banks of the Tigris, and among the city’s most precious sites — was one of the very few structures to have survived the devastation of the 13th-century Mongol invasion On July 25, 2014, members of the Islamic State reduced it to rubble.
In Tikrit, the city’s most famous and most beautiful church of St. Ahoadamah, known as the Green
Church, dating from the 7th century, has been erased from history.
In Syria, the Jabhat al-Nusra’s destruction of the Deir el-Zour Armenian Church, that stood as a memorial to the 1.5 million slaughtered in the Armenian genocide in Turkey, was blown up.
In Mali, much of UNESCO’s World Heritage Site of Timbuktu (Mali) was destroyed during the battles of Gao and Timbuktu, fought between the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad and the
Islamist Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa between June 26 and 27, 2012. Afterwards, the Islamist group Ansar Din went on a rampage identical to that of the Islamic State. An official for the group, Abou Dardar, boasted that “not a single mausoleum will remain in Timbuktu.”
Sufi shrines have been pulverized in Egypt, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia,
Morocco, India, and the Balkans.
In Bahrain, 43 Shi’i mosques and tens of other religious structures have been destroyed and damaged by the ruling Sunni government there.
Across Syria and Iraq, ancient archaeological sites have been wrecked. They were not just the
heritage of those countries, they were central to our understanding of the ancient world, where human civilization first developed in city-states. Apamea, with its famous colonnade and beautiful mosaic, capital of the Seleucid empire, was a major center of Roman rule in the Levant, a leading city in Byzantine Syria, and at one time among the best-preserved archaeological sites in the region. Today, it looks like the face of the moon. Its devastation, the work of demolition done by looters using heavy earth-moving machines, took a mere four or five months.
In eastern Syria, one of the world’s richest archaeological remains, Dura-Europos, the
“Pompeii of the Syrian Desert,” was obliterated. Remarkable finds had been brought to light: temples, wall decorations, inscriptions, military equipment, and tombs. It had been home to a third-century painted ynagogue as well as to the oldest example in the world of a Christian
house-church, which contained the earliest depictions of Jesus Christ ever
found, dating back to 235 AD. The Islamic State looted the site and, as
elsewhere, has apparently sold its treasure on the black market of the
antiquities trade, presumably using the proceeds to inflate their already
swollen coffers for the promotion of jihad.
Both Shi’i and Sufi rines and mosques have fallen afoul of the Islamic State’s fanaticism. Jewish
sites have been targeted so extensively that UNESCO has held a special session
on threats posed to them. UNESCO’s Director-General Irina Bokova has
described the Islamic State’s activities in this respect as “a form of
cultural cleansing.” Many other Jewish sites were also destroyed or under
threat from Islamist entities in Libya, where an ancient Jewish heritage was
all but wiped out under the regime of Mu’ammar Qadhafi, and where what is left
is succumbing to fresh attacks.
moosehorn
Your ranting must be the effect of strong narcotics or a looming dementia.
Arafat
Moosehorn, this is all about you…
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin