[Marxism] Counterpunch article
lnp3 at panix.com
Fri Apr 5 15:04:34 MDT 2013
On 4/5/13 4:45 PM, Robert Weiss wrote:
> Your map is misleading. The vast majority of what it shows as
> "Palestinian Land" in 1947 was actually state ("emirate") land,
> expropriated by the Sultan centuries ago. In 1947 it was the property
> of the British Mandatory government. After the formation of Israel the
> part that was under Israeli control passed to the Israeli state. Jordan
> got its piece, which after 1967 passed to the Israeli occupation
> authority. This was not amok expansion but legal transfer. Further,
> your reference to "lebensraum" doesn't add anything constructive here.
> (By the way, have you noticed the controversy over the #My Jihad ads?
> Try translating that into German.) The fraction of privately owned
> land in the region, in the sense that we have in the United States, is I
> believe about 10-15%. Since there was never a Palestinian state, the
> emirate land was never owned by Palestinians. Could have been if they
> had chosen peace in 1947, but that didn't happen.
Robert, this is going to be my last response to you since you are
obviously some kind of hardened, hasbara-dispensing Zionist wingnut. I
have heard all this crap myself and even believed it once upon a time.
My mother was president of her local Hadassah and I went to Hebrew
school in 1957 where we learned the words to Hatikvah.
All I will say on the matter of substance is that because "there was
never a Palestinian state", that did not give the Zionists to carve one
out through violence. You might as well have said the same thing about
Turkey in 1921. No such country existed. It was simply a part of the
Ottoman Empire. What if the biblical Jews had lived in Anatolia instead
of the kingdom of Judea? Would that have given them the right to throw
the Turkish speaking peoples off that land and to plant the Star of
David above it? That, of course, is what the Turks did to the Armenians.
They carried out a genocide to make the country pure Turkish. Guess who
supported the Turks in that endeavor? Israel, of course. This has
changed lately since the AKP took power. With an Islamist government
that verbally favors the Palestinians, no wonder that the Zionists are
changing their mind about the Armenian genocide.
> Whether Zionism is regarded as progressive or monstrous has nothing to
> do with why many of the Palestinians are refugees. Many peoples were
> displaced during the last century. You mentioned the Indians and
> Pakistanis. Others that come to mind are the South Asians of Uganda,
> Sudeten Germans, Nationalist Chinese, Hmong, and Vietnamese boat people.
> Many more examples are available, including of course European and
> Middle Eastern Jews. All of these now have homes of one kind or another
> in the lands of their destinations. The big exception is the
> Palestinians. Why are they different?
A Rush Limbaugh talking point. I am not going to answer the rest of your
garbage which was picked from the bottom of CAMERA's barrel. My poor
mom, who remained a Zionist until she died, used to send me emails just
like yours. She at least had the excuse of "declining" as she reached
her mid-80s. It is pathetic to see a Jew like yourself carrying on like
this, especially when the recipient of your email clearly knows how to
respond to such bullshit from having the sad experience of believing it
once upon a time.
Don't bother responding to this since I am putting you into a kill-file.
> For one thing, the Arab League instituted a policy that Palestinians
> could not receive citizenship from its member states, generally but not
> meticulously followed by all but Jordan, which seems to be in the
> process of selective revocation. Laws in many Muslim countries restrict
> their ability to own land and practice certain professions. On top of
> that, the definition of "refugee" is different for Palestinians than for
> others: it can be inherited, and that from both the mother's and
> father's side, and is not lost upon resettlement, so the number of
> refugees can only increase. Even the non-refugee Palestinians, when in
> control, insist on maintaining the refugee status of their less
> fortunate fellows--there is a city of Jenin and within it a refugee
> camp, even though by the usual definition one cannot be a refugee in his
> own land. When the Israelis tried to empty the camp and provide other
> housing in the West Bank they were brought up short by the UN. There
> are several other reasons, too. I might go so far as to say that UNRWA
> is paying them to be refugees. I'm sure they don't appreciate the
> overall arrangement, but the fact is that if you have a refugee card you
> get money and food.
> So while the origin of the Palestinian refugee problem may partly be due
> to Israeli actions, its continuation, for more than 60 years, is much
> less so.
> Further, the Palestinians who did not flee did not get "nothing but
> refugee camps". They are citizens of Israel with extensive civil rights
> by the standards of the region and even by those of the rest of the
> world. At this point you will say "second-class citizens" (or third, or
> fourth) and I will say "that's like ethnic/religious situations in Latin
> America, Malaysia, Turkey, and also the United States." In any case,
> even if they were treated like dirt:
> Why did you ignore the migration of Mizrachi Jews to Israel and make a
> statement about a "unilateral direction"? ("of course")
> *From:* Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> *To:* Robert Weiss <weissrm0 at yahoo.com>; Activists and scholars in
> Marxist tradition <marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2013 12:38 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Counterpunch article
> On 4/5/13 3:14 PM, Robert Weiss wrote:
> > I was referring to the Farhud
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud> (1941), one of the 20th century's
> > named atrocities. (Since you say you're a Marxist and have included
> > some of them in the conversation, check out Holodomor
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor> for your folks' handiwork.
> > Sorry, that was gratuitous. But not all that sorry.) At one point I
> > was going to make a list of the names, but after a while couldn't
> > stomach it.
> > That the Ottoman empire was sometimes capable of tolerance doesn't prove
> > that it was practiced universally, and a bullet to the head makes up for
> > a lot of last year's smiles. Ask the Armenians. No, that won't work;
> > most of them can't answer. And the Greeks seem to have experienced some
> > unpleasantness in the early 19th century, which attracted Europe's
> > attention at the time.
> > You still haven't replied to my comment about "unilateral direction",
> > which was the point of my first message.
> You're right. My apologies. My head was somewhere else entirely.
> Here's what I meant by unilateral.
> The Zionists got Palestinian land through violence sanctified by
> imperialism, while the Palestinians got nothing but refugee camps. When
> I was young and Zionism was still viewed mistakenly as progressive, they
> used to say that it was the Arabs' fault that they did not absorb the
> Palestinians. Considering how Jews were victims of fascist pogroms, it
> is really one of history's cruel ironies that they could in turn carry
> out their own 'lebensraum' policies. Just look at this map of the Middle
> East to see how Israeli expansionism ran amok.
More information about the Marxism