NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
Translation: May veneration be presented to the exalted one who is a Buddha and has achieved enlightenment by himself righteously. X3
The Occupation of The American Mind
Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States
A Review by Brother Mark:)
1 of 2
: of, relating to, or employing documentation (see DOCUMENTATION sense 2) in literature or art
This film is certainly not a documentary, there is absolutely very little if anything objective and unbiased about it.
Very early on in this film, it becomes apparent that the goal of the film is to delegitimize the state of Israel in the worse sounding way. This is important, as you will see, because if this is done then it helps to establish a sort of moral gravitas that would be difficult to establish otherwise. This is done by playing a cheap shell game with statistics as we shall discuss.
9:47 “A people without a land for a land without a people, the reality is that’s just not the way it happened”
” ‘A land without a people for a people without a land’ is a widely cited phrase associated with the movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries.”
“Although it became a Jewish Zionist slogan, the phrase was originally used as early as 1843 by a Christian Restorationist clergyman, and the phrase continued to be used for almost a century predominantly by Christian Restorationists. Palestine wasn’t nearly as populated during the early to middle of the nineteenth century when the first strong wave of Jewish immigration began to occur in Palestine, as it was during the middle of the twentieth century.
“Alan Dowty and Diana Muir have claimed that this phrase never came into widespread use among Jewish Zionists. Anita Shapira stated to the contrary that it ‘was common among Zionists at the end of the nineteenth, and the beginning of the twentieth century.’ ” (1)
Whichever you choose, to claim or imply that this slogan was widely used as a justification for the establishment of the state of Israel by Zionists in 1948 or thereafter is simply a lie. If anything it were the opponents of Zionists who kept it alive in their opposition to it.(2)
6:11 “…Palestinians have been systematically dispossessed from their land and denied their most basic human rights.”
This film promotes the idea that the
Jews Zionists are just European “colonizers” with no indigenous connection to the land, who came and bullied the indigenous natives out of what is rightfully theirs. If this is true, who were they colonizing for? They were in diaspora for more than 2000 years,(3) and used the British mandate for Palestine to resettle(4). There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that every single one of those displaced by the war of 1948 wouldn’t have been displaced if it weren’t for the fact that Israel after declaring it’s independence, weren’t attacked by six countries whom were it’s neighbors. (5)
The film early on suggests that an offer for a two state solution was rejected because it was deemed unfair. However, if anyone should research this you will find that it will be quite challenging to find any Palestinian Arab leadership at the time, including the Palestinian Arab leading Representatives called the Arab Higher Committee, who was ever willing to even negotiate a two state solution, regardless of what the proposed configuration might be. Why? It’s simple. A two state solution would necessitate the existence of a Jewish state as well as a Palestinian state. That very idea itself was intolerable. It was and largely has always been a strategy of all or nothing. It is this my friends that have cost them dearly. It is this that continues to cost them dearly, while their respective leadership rakes in literally millions in support every year, profoundly profiting off of a conflict that it is actually in their best selfish interests to perpetuate. As it could once be rightly said about President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney about the Iraq war, it can now rightfully be said about Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, although the same mechanisms aren’t being used. (6)
“Jews who were a 1/3 of the population and would get 56% of the land Palestinians who were 2/3 of population would and who possessed more than 90% of “Historic Palestine” would get 44% of the land.”
…who possessed more than 90% of “Historic Palestine”…
The 2/3 to 1/3 ratio is about right, although there was a great deal of Jewish immigration from Europe as well as Arab immigration from other parts of Palestine and the surrounding areas from around 1920-1948.
The idea here is to give the false impression that the Zionists bullied their way into town and took over land that was 90% possessed by Palestinian Arabs!(7)
Whether or not you think that what was first offered was fair or not, considering the fact that the Palestinian Arabs certainly weren’t in short supply of land through out historic Palestine, would be a matter of opinion. However, to say or to imply that the Zionists came to town and were looking to usurp the land of it’s indigenous population is a false claim and in fact is not what happened at all. There is a difference between what the population per capita of land available break down looked like, and how much land was actually owned by whom, if by any body. This is why they rather liberally use the term “possessed” as opposed to “owned” to try and avoid this issue. To no avail, this claim whether we use the term “possessed” or “owned” has absolutely no foundation for substantiation whatsoever. Indeed, unless of course you were considering two of the largest land owners in Palestine at the time, who were busy selling land to the
Jews Zionists, although even then I believe the claim presented in this so called “documentary” would fall miserably short.(8)
As we shall see, from the very beginning to the very end of this movie, this cheap trick shell game is an essential feature of the film and what they need to rely upon to give the message that they want to give. Namely, that the state of Israel is an illegitimate state that presumably has no good moral or otherwise business being there. It’s an “occupation”! The fact that people like Norman G. Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky we’re glad to give their cameo appearance for a film like this doesn’t surprise me. This is why I believe they mention the word “occupation” as much as possible throughout this film. The agenda is to support the elimination of Israel, any Zionist presence at all in the settlements of the West bank, and to replace it all with a Palestinian state. This totally ignores the fact that most people do support a two state solution. There is no need to explicably state this agenda when you’re constantly referring to Israel as the “occupation”, and giving more of a covert reference to it, making the message more palpable to those who wouldn’t otherwise overtly support the outright destruction of the state of Israel.
Who were the 16.9% who fled the 1948 war hoping to return after the Zionist’s defeat and why did they leave?
The one issue that isn’t mentioned in a film like this, is that there were many Palestinian’s who fled voluntarily because they were encouraged to do so by those who amongst others, felt it would be best if they got out of the way of the fighting and assured them that they would be able to return after Israel was defeated.
“collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders, and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.” (10)
“After the 1948 war 78 % of Palestine occupied by Israel and 22% of Palestine for Palestinians.” Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians driven from their homes to create Israel. Clip shows people being walked with their hands up…”
“No Palestinian Arab areas or villages were conquered at this point, and Palestinians who left their homes did so mostly driven by their fear of being caught up in violent clashes, but without being expelled. Most of those leaving were upper-middle-class Palestinian families—doctors, lawyers, community notables, and teachers—whose departure seriously harmed Palestinian morale and paved the way for later departures. The masses were left effectively leaderless: by March 1948, almost all the members of the Arab Higher Committee had already left the country.”(11)
The Economist, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit….It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”(12)
Edward Atiyah, the secretary of the Arab League Office in London, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country.”(12)
The charge that the Jewish Holocaust becomes the cause for an excuse for Zionist policy...
Here we have that famous anti Zionist celebrity academic Norman G. Finkelstein being show cased with his book “The Holocaust Industry” . The basic charge for this film is that the Zionists have a habit of using the holocaust unjustifiably to their political and otherwise advantage. I believe that we should take a closer look at what we’re actually talking about. The Jewish people have for quite a long time suffered at ..the hand of anti Jewish bigotry. The murdering of Jews began I believe in earnest, in the early forth century when what has now become known as the Roman Catholic Church began murdering Jews and anyone else they deemed a heretic. Even today we hear from the Christian bigots of how “those Jews murdered our messiah”. They seem too thick to realize that if according to their own story, he wasn’t crucified, he wouldn’t be their messiah in the first place. So it goes on and on through out history, pogrom after murdering pogrom until it finally culminates in the murdering of one big murderous pogrom known today as the Nazi Holocaust of World War Two, where millions were sent to their death in horrific ovens and gas showers. Those nefarious Zionist Jews! Taking advantage of the holocaust! They have some nerve! The question here is whether or not you believe the motivation to do so is a morally good and sound one or not. If you’re someone who would like to believe that there has been a type of nefarious motivation for doing so, then you can. This is the position that some take.
If you don’t believe that this is to say the least, always the case at all, and that the motivation for doing so is for a good and just cause, then the story with basically the same facts becomes something entirely different.
As only an example or two, lets look at what happened after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Both became focal points and a rallying cry for politicians, and quite justifiably so. Can you imagine the natural inclination to do the same after literally century’s upon century’s of murderous abuse which still continues to this day, with the knowledge of a mass killing spree called the Holocaust? One of the reasons for the creation of the state of Israel was the concern of a massive killing wave of bigotry. The state of Israel was to be a safe haven for the Jewish people.
The Jewish Holocaust of Nazi Germany tragically proved their concerns correct. All of this seems to totally miss the producers of this film.
The Jewish Lobby…
This part of the film takes a shot at the AIPAC lobby group.
Why is this lobbying group so successful? Is it because of the Zionist money looking to occupy your mind by manipulating the otherwise innocent will of the politician? This film I believe would like you to think so. Lets take a closer look, shall we?
Who has a higher concentration of people in the general population? Palestinian Arabs or the Jewish people? Lets all just sit back and relax while our friends over at Mundo Vison (producers of this Israel hit piece) think good and hard about that. So where would a lot of the support naturally go to in financial terms? Who as well has a much larger constituency to effect the votes in Congress with issues that effect the empathy of Jewish community? Perhaps we should give all the Israel haters a day off or two from work or something so that they can all give a serious study to such questions. This “propamentary” tells me they all just might need it:)
Do the Palestinian Arabs have a lobby?
Why yes, actually they do. If you thought that this film was an objective and your only source of information though, you would never know it!
“From the beginning, the Arab lobby has faced a disadvantage in electoral politics and organization. There are several politically oriented groups, but many of these are one-person operations with little financial or popular support. Americans for Justice in the Middle East was formed by a group of Americans at the American University in Beirut after the 1967 war to combat “Zionism’s virulent thirty-year campaign of hate and vindictiveness.” Two anti-Zionist Jews were longtime supporters of the Arab lobby: Elmer Berger, who founded American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism, and Alfred Lilienthal, who published the Middle East Perspectives newsletter.
There are several larger and more representative groups, including the aforementioned NAAA and ADC, the Middle East Research and Information Project; the Middle East Affairs Council, Americans for Near East Refugee Aid, the Arab American Institute, and the American Palestine Committee. Typically, these organizations have boards of directors composed of prominent retired government officials. Board members have included former Ambassador to Jordan, L. Dean Brown, Herman Eilts, former Ambassador to Syria and Egypt; Parker T. Hart, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and several others.(13)
Early terrorist resistance to the Jewish state of Israel
“I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all.”
“Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”
Haj Amin al-Husseini (14)
For those who would like to deny the very real religious context of this conflict and proclaim it to be simply a political one….let us take note of the fact that when he says “kill the Jews wherever you find them” he is actually paraphrasing what is known as the verse of the sword Qur’an, 9:5 . Qur’an, 9:6 allows for safe passage, but this would need to be a proactive request of the unbeliever who is looking to hear the word of Allah, and hopefully would have that opportunity to ask for it should they wish to do so. Therefore, if you’re not ready for conversion, or given that opportunity to do so because the unbelievers are being killed, your prospects may not be good.
There aren’t any peaceful ayah in the Qur’an that could allow for an understanding of an indefinite peaceful coexistence with the unbeliever (Kafir) that haven’t been abrogated. The Qur’an teaches abrogation at Sura 2:106, Sura 16:101 and as well Sura 13:39. The Qur’an as it is now known to be isn’t a chronological rendering of the different Suras. This is why a list of the Suras in chronological order is a useful thing when studying the Qur’an. Oh but wait, I almost forgot…this is all strictly “political”.
The man Haj Amin al-Husseini was the head man for the Arab Higher Committee which was at the time of the Palestine Mandate the chief representative of the Palestinian Arab people in Palestine.
He was a personal friend and once a guest of the leader of Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler himself.
He was appointed the title of Mufti Of Jerusalem by the British which meant that he was the top representative for the religion of Islam in those parts.
He was instrumental in many of the murderous riots against the Jews prior to the establishment of the state of Israel.(15) There are people whom I have met who would rather consider him as having been a “resistance fighter” as opposed to a terrorist. I always remember this sort of thing when people are taught to believe that Zionism is the the equivalent of Nazism, or tell me that Zionism has no good moral foundation. Just think of it, if Golda Meir or David Ben Gurion were buddy buddy with Der Furer, we would never hear the end of it.
Should Palestinian Arab resistance to the state of Israel be historically characterized as violent terrorism? Was that a serious question? We’re just getting started with this brief (and I do mean brief) summary
The Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.)
“We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem our land!”
Whoever stands by a just cause cannot possibly be called a terrorist. – Yasser Arafat(17)
Sadly many today whom are loyal to any perspective of this issue that can be had, will use this as a justification for whomever they kill and however they may kill them.
The P.L.O. much of the time under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, has had a history of changing it’s tune between out right violent terrorism denying Israel’s right to exist and the willingness to negotiate on peaceful terms and accept the right of Israel to exist. The P.L.O.’s sporadic off and on again willingness to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Israel and accept it’s right to exist has created several violent terrorist organizations to splinter off and establish themselves. Today’s heir to the P.L.O. throne so to speak, is the Fatah organization led by Mahmoud Abbas, currently in the leadership position of the Palestinian Authority. In 1998 Yasser Arafat revised the Palestinian National Charter to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a Nation State and to favor the establishment of a two state solution. To this day, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have yet to acknowledge this. (18)
Whether we’re talking about the 1988 Hamas Charter or the 2017 sugar coated version, both have as their goal the destruction of the state of Israel, “…by any means necessary”. This includes terrorism, the killing of innocent civilian men, women, and children to achieve their political goals. Here they show us one of their own little boys strapped with explosives, to show us just how serious they are about killing whomever they deem necessary to accomplish the destruction of the state of Israel. We’re supposed to believe that they’re not fanatical religious zealots, but that they’ve been “forced” into such “desperation” by the bad “colonialist” Zionists.
Hamas …”was established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood and religious factions of the PLO, and the new organization quickly acquired a broad following. In its 1988 charter, Hamas maintained that Palestine is an Islamic homeland that can never be surrendered to non-Muslims and that waging holy war to wrest control of Palestine from Israel is a religious duty for Palestinian Muslims. This position brought it into conflict with the PLO, which in 1988 recognized Israel’s right to exist.”
…”PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, seeking to include Hamas in the political process, appointed Hamas members to leadership positions in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) The collapse of peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians in September 2000 led to an increase in violence that came to be known as the Aqsa intifada. That conflict was marked by a degree of violence unseen in the first intifada, and Hamas activists further escalated their attacks on Israelis and engaged in a number of suicide bombings in Israel itself.”(19)
Understand of course, that they’re talking about civilian men, women and children.
The Palestinian Authority
Yes, that’s right. The cowardly act of killing unarmed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics is what the Palestinian Authority considers “heroic”. Killing innocent men, women, and children is all part of the “resistance” to the establishment of the state of Israel.
“A Palestinian child can walk to school along a street named after the terrorist Abu Jihad, who planned a bus hijacking that killed 37, spend the day learning in a school named after Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, in the afternoon play football in a tournament named after suicide terrorist Abd Al-Baset Odeh who killed 31, and end his day at a youth center named after terrorist Abu Iyad, responsible for the killing of the 11 Olympic athletes in Munich.”
“Among the 46 different terrorists cited in the report, one is glorified by the PA more than any other. Dalal Mughrabi whose 1978 attack on a bus filled with civilians killed more Israelis than any other Palestinian terrorist attack, has over a dozen of institutions in the West Bank named after her. In fact, USAID, through American Near East Refugee Aid, funded renovations for ‘the Dalal Mughrabi Girl’s High School’ in Hebron.”(20)
The Palestinian Authority has long practiced the endeavor of celebrating terrorists, naming streets and town squares after them, and paying them and their family’s to kill Jews. That last one is commonly called their “pay for slay” program.(21) Unfortunately, the Palestinian rights types would rather not go near this topic other that to give a sort of corporate sounding disclaimer of terrorism while otherwise just ignoring it all. Worse yet many will attempt to give a justification for it, while at the same time condemning terrorism. This is like the person who will apologize to you for something but yet then go on to rationalize just why they did what they did in the first place.
Palestinian Arab children wear necklaces of “martyred” terrorist’s for “protection”.
Yes, it’s true. The many children in The P.A. controlled territories are wearing picture amulets of terrorists who have been “martyred”.
“The Martyrs die, but their life stories remain in the Palestinian landscape. In the heart of the old city of Nablus, Hisham strives to create necklaces of Martyrs. A necklace of cord with a picture of one of the Martyrs, which is printed on a protective amulet. The Martyrs themselves customarily wear it from time to time…”
Storeowner Hisham: “Every [Martyr] has his own status, but Muhammad Al-Azizi, Abboud [Abd Al-Rahman] Sobeh, Ibrahim Al-Nabulsi, Wadi’ Al-Houh, and Tamer Al-Kilani – you could say that there is a special demand for them.”
So…while the P.A. is naming streets and community centers and town squares after those willing to kill unarmed civilians, literally paying people to kill Jews Zionists, and encouraging their children to idolize those who kill for the “resistance”, can it be any wonder that peace is so hard to come by? If only all of those pesky Jews Zionists would just pack up and leave town! Then there would be peace at last!(22)
12:26 …”In addition Israel has established an entire matrix of security control on Palestinian land to secure these settlements including checkpoints that prevent Palestinians from traveling freely within their own land, and a 440 mile security wall that cuts into Palestinian territory.”
The fact is this all only came about during the Second Intifada, when this became necessary for Israel to protect her citizens in Israel from terrorist attacks that were occurring on practically a daily basis. Afterwards they have been kept as a security measure. Some want to discuss U.N. Resolution Number 194. This is a resolution that deals with the prospect of the Palestinian Arab refugees “right of return”. The one thing that many will ignore is Article 11 of that same resolution. It discusses a condition on that right to return, that condition being the willingness of those refugees to “…live in peace with their neighbors…”. Interestingly, my Palestinian Arab rights friends never seem to know or remember that caveat.
The Lebanon War 1982
Come to think of it, What about the first Lebanon war discussed in this movie? It seems as if in this movie, Israel just went to Lebanon and started killing people with their overwhelming might, using the excuse of fighting the P.L.O.?
One of the things that you will notice about a movie like this is that there’s a lot that they don’t talk about. When the Lebanon war in 1982 is talked about, they simply mention that Israel went into Lebanon to fight the P.L.O. and have a news reporter discussing the reverse role of David and Goliath. This is then used as a lead into discussing the P.R. efforts of Israel.
This would be like me saying that they went into Lebanon because they had a “disagreement” or a “point of contention” and leaving it at that.
“The first Lebanon War was Israel’s longest and most controversial war. In the mid-1970s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) broadened its presence in Lebanon, establishing military training centers and escalating artillery and cross-border attacks on civilians in northern Israel. Following the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London, Israel attacked PLO targets in Lebanon on June 4, 1982. The PLO responded with rocket and artillery barrages, and Israel retaliated by sending ground troops into Lebanon, in a mission titled “Operation Peace for the Galilee.”(23)
“Begin ordered the bombing of PLO positions in June 1982 after members of a PLO splinter group attempted to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Brittan. The PLO retaliated with a rocket barrage on Israel’s northern border towns, whereupon Israel launched a new invasion of southern Lebanon.”
“Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila, where they massacred hundreds of men, women, and children. The multinational force, withdrawn quickly after Arafat’s departure, was reinserted.”(24)Would I say that what happened at those refugee camps was proper? No I certainly wouldn’t. As well, I can’t say that I know of any Zionist that would say that it was just. I would also say though, that acknowledging something obviously wrong and using it to question Israel’s very existence as legitimate are two very different things. Israel is the only country in the world that I know of where it’s very existence is supposedly to be questioned as legitimate because of a policy or a decision or a wrongful mistake during war or such that one doesn’t like. That would be something reserved for Israel.
The war in Gaza 2014
This film goes on to discuss the 2014 conflict in Gaza …
They show us a graph that gives the break down of how the rocket attacks have increased but then leave that topic alone and move on to discussing how Hamas never violated the cease fire, while showing us a street interview with an Israeli diplomat who acknowledges as much.
“In the Gaza Strip the atmosphere of heightened tension led to an increase in rocket attacks on Israel by Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian militants. Those had been relatively infrequent since the 2012 cease-fire, but by late June 2014 rocket launches and Israeli reprisals had become a daily occurrence. On June 30, in response to these reprisals, Hamas fired its first rockets into Israel since the cease-fire.”(25)
The Israel diplomat with the street interview that acknowledges that Hamas wasn’t responsible for a single act of breaking the treaty leaves out the fact that there were other militant groups attacking Israel and that Hamas being in political control at the time in Gaza was justifiably seen as over all responsible.
“Between the signing of the Hamas-Israel ceasefire in 2012 and the start of this latest Israeli military offensive on Gaza, Hamas fired no rockets into Israel and worked to stop other groups from firing rockets. This decreased the number of rockets and mortars fired into Israel from Gaza to record low levels during this period.” (26)
If you didn’t know any better you would just think that this was just some initial contradictory information that they were including. What they don’t tell you is that these rocket attacks were blamed by Hamas on the Islamic Jihad group as well as others. Should Hamas have been held responsible because they were the elected representatives of Gaza? Was it a war by proxy, that was gradually increasing to see how much Israel would take before they responded? The viewer should be able to decide these issues, but is of course never given the chance by way of not giving them this information to be able to decide for themselves.
They give what sounds to be an obligatory disclaimer for the support of terrorism, but then go on to strongly imply a rational for it.
Speaking of the notion of Israel engaging in self defense as regards it’s conflict in Gaza, the person speaking mentions that self defense sounds good, but then “the ‘occupation’ slips out of view”. Here a rational for terror against the civilian population is being offered. That rationalization being implied is a common one, that being the supposed “occupation” of the state of Israel.
Again, we should believe that they’re just “freedom fighters” who have been “forced” into murdering civilians.
Noam Chomsky graciously gives us his opinion…
There are two issues that Noam Chomsky gives his perspective on. One is that the Jews consider Israel to be land that was given to them by the God of Israel, backed with footage from a Christian restorationism type group and statements alluding to the understanding amongst the Jews that they are God’s chosen people. This is I believe meant to give the false impression that Israel was created for this reason instead of the fact that Israel was created primarily to help give the Jews a place of refuge from all of the historical Jew killing. (27) I will add here that the Christians and Muslim not only do as well believe that they are God’s special chosen people, and it is contained in their respective religious scripture also.
Jews: Deuteronomy 7:6 Christians: Mark 13:20 and 1Peter 2:9-2:10 Islam: Qur’an 35:32
Noam Chomsky also has something to say about the attack at the Al Wafa hospital compound.
Yes folks, it’s true, Hamas does have a history and have demonstrated that they will not hesitate to actually use human shields, and it doesn’t take much web surfing of various sources to realize this. It is apparent that people like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad know that Israel’s best efforts of not being the most evil bastards during a time of war can be counted on for their advantage. What I find amazing is that people can believe that Israel can destroy a hospital without even looking to limit collateral damage when the hospital is being used as a center to fire at the oppositions solders, but will think it unbelievable that Hamas or The Islamic Jihad would ever put anyone in harms way by using them as Human shields! (28)
Let’s now look at the situation with the Al Wafa Hospital.
“In a statement the IDF explained that ‘the hospital grounds and its immediate surroundings have been repeatedly utilized by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a command center, rocket launching site, and a post enabling terrorists to open fire at soldiers.’ ”
“Gunmen, some launching anti-tank missiles, frequently opened fire on troops operating in the area, the IDF said, including on Wednesday morning. Airstrikes against the compound went ahead ‘in light of several occasions in which fire was opened at IDF forces from within the hospital grounds, and despite repeated warnings against such activities, and notifications to civilians to vacate the premises.’ ”(29)(30)
What?! You mean that our friend and historical information Plymouths Rock of credibility, Noam Chomsky didn’t mention that the hospital had been abandoned by civilians and was being used as a command center by Hamas and Islamic Jihad? What an amazement!
Regardless of where your at with this conversation, you would have to be brain dead by now not to acknowledge that these people are using human shields, and that doing so will one way or anther have unfortunate consequences. The only reasonable question is whether or not you choose to justify that fact. If during the Vietnam war, the Viet Kong can be condemned for strapping explosives’ to little children then so can people like Hamas be condemned for doing the same as well as for using human shields.
Those “illegal” West Bank Settlements?
When you hear people talk about them being illegal under international law, ask yourself, what “international law” are they talking about? you’ll notice that in a piece of work such as this movie, they won’t actually discuss exactly why these settlements are supposedly illegal. Here’s why.
Most of the bodies of the U.N. can’t dictate international law by way of a resolution because their resolutions according to the United Nations Charter aren’t legally binding. They can have and are entitled to their opinion all they want, that doesn’t make it necessarily “International Law”. Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria (today commonly referred to as the “West bank”) from 1950 up until the 1967 war,(31) and nobody seemed to have much of any squat to say about it, other than it would be considered “in trust” until the issue regarding Israel and Palestine was resolved. Homes were built there and there was no international “outrage” being funded or promoted by anyone. Oh but wait, that was before the 1967 war, and the Jews came to town. Jordan didn’t have to enter into the conflict that Israel was having with Egypt, but they chose to anyway. The 4th. Geneva Convention usually talked about would not apply because the “West Bank” wasn’t a territory where Israeli civilians or any other portion of the Israeli population were being forcibly transferred to.
Although anyone is entitled to their own opinion, the fact remains that in general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the U.N. Charter.
Charter of the United Nations Chapter III – Organs Article 7
1.There are established as principal organs of the United Nations: a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat.
2.Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the present Charter.
Charter of the United Nations Chapter V – The Security Council Article 25
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
The only other organ of the U.N. whose decisions could be considered binding would be the U.N. I.C.J. that is, The International Court of Justice.
United Nations Charter, Chapter XIV:
The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.
- All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
- A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
- Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
- If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.
Therefore at the worst, the “West Bank” would be considered “disputed territory” and not “illegally occupied”.(32) In other words, as an example, the General Assembly of the U.N. doesn’t get to pass a resolution and have it considered binding as “international law”.
Regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention which some may wish to mention…
“In varying degrees, they consider Israel’s settlements to be in violation of international law, specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of August 12, 1949.”
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
“In other words, according to the ICRC commentary, Article 49 relates to deportations, meaning the forcible transfer of an occupying power’s population into an occupied territory.” (33) Again, the Forth Geneva Convention usually talked about would not apply because the “West Bank” wasn’t a territory where Israeli civilians or any other portion of the Israeli population were being forcibly transferred to. There are those who don’t know or don’t want to know the difference between being transferred or deported somewhere and someone immigrating somewhere.
Let people who wish, parrot the reference of the “illegal” West Bank settlements all they wish for whatever reason they wish, that doesn’t make it so. The next time someone gives a reference to the “illegal” by “international law” West bank settlements, ask them just what international law they’re talking about.
There are those that insist never the less that the land should be given back after hostilities have ceased. I and others are of the opinion that practically speaking, this should only apply to the aggressors if anyone and not anyone acting in self defense. Otherwise, you could attack a country in some way, and then when it doesn’t work out, you could just declare that everyone move back to start and well….never mind!
“After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. Soon after this, in response to Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) guerilla activity, including a mine attack that left three dead, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-ruled West Bank. Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back. King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan’s aid, and “hiding behind UNEF skirts”.
“In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in two defensive lines in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel’s border (16 May), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (19 May) and took over UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. Israel repeated declarations it had made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war, but Nasser closed the Straits to Israeli shipping on 22–23 May.”(34)
About those false reports from the Soviet Union, You would think that Nasser could have sent someone to go and take a look?
“Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. ‘Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,’ he said on May 27. The following day, he added: We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.”(35)
None of this understandably played very well. Closing the Straits of Tiran, getting rid of the U.N. peace keeping forces at the border, amassing his troops at the border ….what was Israel to do? Actually wait until the bombs were being dropped? Yes, this was defensive. Now, although one might still in spite of all of this disagree about whether or not Israel has a right to be in the “West Bank”. But don’t you think that you deserve to have more information than what they give, which, other than calling the settlements “illegal” as much as they can, isn’t very much? Ask yourselves just why they would deprive you of this and other information that you certainly would use to make a more informed judgment on these matters? The answer is a simple one, this is a “propumentary” not a documentary.
Anti Semitism and the Self Hating Jew
Toward the end of his film we have someone ridiculing the fact that he’s been called anti Semitic because his wife is Jewish, he has Jewish in-laws, etc. There’s the skit with Jon Stewart mocking the self hating Jew concept. I would like to bring into evidence here a man by the name of Hajo Meyer. Hajo Meyer first came to my attention when I saw a meme of him on Twitter being quoted as a survivor of Auschwitz saying that the Zionists were like Nazi war criminals. The first thing that I did was look to see what this man had produced or written if I could, to see just who he was. What I found was amazing to me and totally blew away the notion that someone couldn’t be anti Semitic if they were Jewish themselves or had relatives who died at the hands of the Nazi’s or anything like that. As it turns out he once wrote a book called (get this) ” The End Of Judaism” and in this book he claims that he questions that even though Jewish people have certain cultural and religious ties, whether or not Jews should even be considered as a socially classifiable group of people! Seriously? Folks, even Hamas nor any of their ilk would say such a thing. Nor can you consider Hamas or their type anything near Zionist friendly, but yes, even they would know better than to say such a thing. Interestingly even more is his discussion on how he himself has seen that even two or three generations deep after the Holocaust, that there are profound psychological repercussions dating back to the Holocaust itself. He speaks of the responsibility felt by these people for the suffering of these survivors of the Holocaust.
“Henryk Broder was sentenced in 2006 to a term in prison by a German court after he had publicly accused anti-Zionists like Meyer and Abraham Melzer [de] for their putative ‘capacities for applied Judeophobia” (Kapazitäten für angewandte Judäophobie) because they had compared the Israeli “occupation” policy to measures taken by the Nazis. On appeal, a court mostly cleared Broder, stating that there was no such thing as ‘Jewish anti-Semitism’“.(36)
I will give you an example as to what type of wishful thinking this is. Saying that someone who is Jewish is incapable of being anti Semitic is like saying that an African American or Person Of Color so to speak in America is incapable of being racist. This at best, relies on the notion that racism or in this case anti Semitism, is purely a social construct and nothing more. Even though anti Semitism can express itself as a social construct as it did in Nazi Germany, anti Semitism is something more commonly expressed now a days as racism can be, that being in beliefs that bestow a certain type of characteristic or characteristics upon a “race” or ethnic community. Hajo Meyer went one step farther than that by questioning whether or not Jews should even be considered classifiable as a group of people.
“After the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 A. D., the Jews were dispersed over the antique world much more widely than previously. They no longer spoke a common language, nor did their homeland exist. It is far from the truth that they share a common racial background. Thus, the claim of Zionists at the end of the 19th century that the Jews were a race had little to do with reality. It is debatable whether or not the Jews can even be considered a people.“(37)
He writes about the Jewish “race” in terms that would suggest that he subscribed to the now widely debunked theory of race as categorized by certain physical characteristics as opposed to identifying one’s D.N.A. for any ethnic community identifiers (popularly termed “race”).
This being an attempt to rob them of any self identity as a people. The characteristic if you will, being offered to his fellow Jews is to consider them unworthy of any consideration as a classified group of people, regardless of how you consider one being a Jew! This sort of talk is the height of Nazi land, where the Jews were considered something less than a human being. After all, if you’re less than human, how can you even be considered a socially classifiable group of people. Go ahead, tell me that’s not anti Semitic! Whenever I hear one of the anti Zionist type academics talk about how they can’t be an anti Semitic, self shaming Jew type, because they have close relatives who were victims of Auschwitz or another of one of the Holocaust concentration camps, or because their close relatives survived Auschwitz or something of this sort I remember Hajo Meyer. Someone who has survived Auschwitz or who has had a mother and or father or even a grand mother or father, would be the perfect candidate for exactly what Hajo Meyer talks about when talks of the psychological damage of the Holocaust being passed from one generation to the next. We should feel sorry for such people. Really.
I believe Hajo Meyer, based on his own experience as he discusses it in his own book, was sadly diagnosing himself and was to close to the forest to see the trees. The German court simply has to have been to dumbfounded to understand the concept of a human being capable of self hatred…or responsibility as Hajo Meyer himself put it.
“A late friend of mine, Dr. Theo K. de Graaf, served in the Israeli army as chief psychiatrist during a period of seven years. In this function, he had a unique opportunity to see and treat an impressive number of second-generation victims. What he learned there he reported in numerous articles, as well as in his book entitled: Trauma and Psychiatry: The Role of Individual and Trans-Generational Traumatization in the Causation of Psychobiological Illness. In his introduction to Chapter 3, “Family Dynamics in Trans-generational Traumatization,” he wrote: Most of our knowledge about the influence of parental trauma on children’s development is derived from case studies. During the ‘60s, Israeli psychoanalysts were among the first to report about serious psychological problems in youngsters that in their opinion could be tracked back to the parents unresolved traumatic Holocaust experiences… The case reports, which are mostly derived from psychoanalytic therapies, emphasized the child’s perspective by means of its fantasies about the parents emotions and ‘secret’ traumatic experiences, the child tries to fill the lacuna—’the conspiracy of silence’—in the survivor family’s communications. De Graaf further expanded on the responsibility that such children tended to feel for their parents’ suffering during the war: A prominent feature in many of these families is the strong and mutual-dependency relationship that continues to exist between the survivor parent and his or her child, even as the child matures. In these cases one may infer the existence of a secret dependency contract between parent and child. What I observed in my own sessions with second and third generation victims who tried to understand their parents’ behavior was that these children and grandchildren of those who experienced the war in hiding or in the camps were often just as traumatized as their parents or grandparents, and in some cases even more so. My understanding of this phenomenon starts from the observation that they were brought up by deeply traumatized parents. The younger generation was thus continually confronted, from earliest childhood on, with the trauma of their parents. This took place during their most impressionable phase of growing up, in stark contrast to the experiences of the parents themselves, who grew up under what we would consider normal circumstances and had more or less normal childhood memories.”(38)
“In the late 70s and 80s, I served as a voluntary group leader in encounter groups with second-generation Holocaust victims under the auspices of a Jewish organization for psychiatry and social work in the Netherlands. During this period, I made a number of important observations that I later found confirmed and explained in the relevant literature. The people with whom I worked were fully grown up, and many had children themselves. They all suffered from the fact that their parents, who had been in camps or underground, were not able to talk about their experiences. Moreover, their damaged parents had given them too much responsibility at an early age, and they all felt guilty for their parents’ suffering.” (39) (Emphasis mine)
Mr. Meyer writes of fighting over a blanket or a piece of bread as these were common experiences in Auschwitz. The psychological damage must have been tremendous for anyone who was lucky enough to have survived such a horror. Imagine knowing that your fellow inmates are being gassed to death and tossed into ovens and knowing that you might be next. You or someone that you have come to love and care for. What a hellish nightmare. Yet there are those who will mock the concept of what is termed the self hating Jew. The consequences of the Holocaust should not be underestimated. The effects are discussed in his book are observed two and three generations down the line. I will stress here once again, we need to remember this when some celebrity academic for the cause of the Palestinian “resistance” or otherwise tells you that he could possibly have no such an issue because his parents or grand parents and such were Holocaust survivors. Or that they can’t possibly be anti Semitic because their husband or wife is Jewish or they’re Jewish. If someone like Mr. Meyer can survive Auschwitz and question whether or not there is actually such a thing as the Jewish people, such of any excuse fails miserably. Self denial can be a very powerful tool. How can they have killed “us” if “we” don’t exist? Should something like Stockholm Syndrome be too far fetched to consider for some as well, and if not, what of the generational effects of such a thing if it were to apply?
What a sad and utterly miserable thing it must have been to experience the horror of any of the Nazi concentration camps.
I will now encourage the reader to do some objective study of these issues. Far too often it is common for people to get caught up in their own preformulated perspectives that were prepackaged for them, instead of doing some objective research on their own. It can be difficult though to ever find any research on any of this that is truly objective, especially because of the highly emotional nature of this topic. It is therefore imperative that we research different opinions and perspectives from all sides, something that few people do. Instead they find themselves believing what their friends believe, and only visiting those websites or books that are recommended by those that they are now in the loop with. This will afford you the privilege of nothing more that taking hold of someone else’s bias, instead of reviewing the evidence in as objective a manner as possible, and developing your own. In order to underscore this and as well talk of a topic that quite often becomes a part of this overall conversation, and that I believe is alluded to in this film when the alleged “European Colonizer” is referenced. The historian Shlomo Sands has made popular the theory that most of todays Jews and including those that “colonized” or established the state of Israel aren’t people who have any historical history with the land we today can refer to as “Palestine” but most are Europeans who converted to Judaism called the Kharzars as well as others. The implication is that they aren’t “real Jews” and have no authentic place in the land of Palestine. He wrote a book call “The Invention of The Jewish People” This has been disproven by genetic testing. How does he deal with it in his book? Let’s take a look…
“Yet so far, no research had found unique and unifying characteristics of Jewish heredity based on a random sampling of genetic material whose ethnic origin is not known in advance.”(40)
In a slightly different way, he then reiterates…
“The bottom line is that, after all the costly “scientific” endeavors, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever.”(41)
The operative words for the above are: “unique and unifying” in other words a single and only one genetic marker…
“whose ethnic origin is not known in advance.”
Working with this same approach you could say that perhaps the Germans aren’t really German or the French aren’t really so French after all.
This as well doesn’t talk anything of whether or not both the Jew as Ashkenazi or Sephardic don’t have very much equal standing as having ancestral genetic history in Palestine. This is important to note because I believe that he veers the topic toward something else other that the original basic assertion. If you read this carefully you can see that what he states here as true for the Jew can be said about the Palestinian Arab as well as most if not all others.
What of that original assertion? The assertion that the Ashkenazic Jews aren’t actually indigenous to Historic Palestine? It would be appropriate to remind ourselves that this is a theory, and absolutely not anything near historical fact that can be in any way demonstrated. He is elaborating on a theory that isn’t anything new for a theory. What about that theory though?
The fact of the matter is that Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews both have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East.(42)
Today, it would be practically impossible to find any Palestinian Arab or Jew with D.N.A. that is purely Middle Eastern, as it would be just as difficult today to find anyone whom is genetically pure anything. As a matter of fact, much of the actual “Palestinian” genetic code to say the least, is something that many would consider to be actually European.
The reason for this is simple, any claim by modern-day Palestinian Arabs to the denomination “Palestinian” as a distinct “racial” group from the middle east and apart from anyone else in the middle east is false. The term Palestinian is believed to come from the Egyptian and Hebrew word peleshet, which loosely translates as, migratory, and was used to describe the inhabitants northeast of Egypt, known as the Philistines. Philistines were closely related to the Greeks and lack ethnic, historic, or linguistic relationship to the Arabs who conquered what is now known as Israel and Gaza.(43) Today however the “Palestinians” would refer to an ethno national group which wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do with their genetic make up.
“While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba’s revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.”(44) I know that that last statement must really bother some of our “Palestinian” friends, but either we can have an honest conversation or we can’t. None of this would suggest though if true, that many a Jew didn’t go wandering. How many went wandering away from Palestine toward Europe? Other than theory, there’s no way to really tell for sure.
Would anyone seriously suggest that most stayed where they were and that most of them later converted to Christianity and later perhaps Islam? Yes. People like Shlomo Sands, without any rhyme or reason so to speak as to why this ever would have been the case.
I doubt that some of those inhabiting that area thousands of years ago are of the exact same genetic make up of what we have today for those calling themselves “Palestinian” or “Palestinian Arabs” or Jews today, or that it was necessarily an entirely homogeneous situation. Despite this, I doubt seriously that any one identifying themselves as “Palestinian” today would feel the need while immigrating to Palestine or the State of Israel to “prove” to anyone just how authentically Palestinian they are. That has been something of an exercise reserved for the Jew.
So now, how can Mr. Sands take the position that most contemporary Ashkenazi Jews aren’t indigenous to the region of Palestine, when he now makes the argument that there’s supposedly not a way to independently verify one’s ethnicity as a Jew?
Mr. Sands is being very selective as to whom he references for a discussion to then counter with a rebuttal. First the argument is that most aren’t really indigenous to Palestine as a people and now it’s that supposedly there’s no way to tell if they actually are!
“Jewish ness” to use a term is both religious as well as an ethnic community. There are Jews of every color and origin; dark, pale, Asian, blond, red-head, and converts who come from every ethnic community you can possibly think of. If your mother was or is Jewish, you’re a Jew and all Jews are equally Jewish. All Jews therefore have equal indigenous rights to the Land of Israel.
None the less, let’s look at some science.
“Four haplogroups are found almost exclusively among Jews.
If you belong to one of those haplogroups, then you almost certainly have Jewish ancestry somewhere in your maternal line.
However, only about half of all Jews belong to those haplogroups, so if you belong to a different haplogroup, it does not rule anything out.”
“Jewish population genetics tells us that mitochondrial DNA haplogroups K1a1b1a, K1a9, K2a2a, and N1b, for example, are common among Ashkenazi Jews but rarely seen in anyone else.
Common Y-chromosome haplogroups include J (and its subgroups) and E1b1b.
Belonging to one of these haplogroups is a reliable indicator of Jewish ancestry.
Because the Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews separated long ago, there has been time for the groups to drift apart genetically.
This means that a genetic test can not only identify Jewish ancestry but can often tell you the specific group.”(45)
What about the other half of Jews you might ask? Simple. There is a big difference between saying that your family isn’t indigenous to Palestine and saying that we can prove with 100% certainty that 100% of all Jews are genetically Jewish or by using a single unifying genetic marker. Let’s once again remember what Mr. Sands original assertion actually was. Let’s remember that when the Muslim conquered Palestine in the seventh century (46) many of of the Jews had long already been dispersed into diaspora,(47) and if the communities were kept tightly associated as they were, then that could have generally preserved those four haplogroups.
Using the same method, would he say the same thing for the Palestinian Arabs? Would he call them non indigenous to Palestine or subject them to the same form of analysis? Of course not. This is reserved for the Jew.
What the D.N.A. tests show importantly, is that the Jews who are acknowledged as being indigenous to Palestine are just as ethnically indigenous to Palestine as the Jews whom it is fashionable for some to deny them this status.
For those who would still insist that the Jews “don’t belong” in Palestine, I would remind all concerned, that the wealthy Arabs selling them vast swathes of land apparently didn’t agree with this sentiment.
So the point is again, if you’re really concerned with finding the best possible understanding of the truth about something instead of being persuaded to simply parrot someone else, instead of just believing me or someone else, try doing some of the study and research yourself.
You might be surprised at what you might find.
A final thought here: We as human beings have the distinct capability of being able to think about thinking as opposed to merely thinking. It’s actually what the term Homo Sapiens Sapiens is referring to. If we prefer to kill another to have what we believe is ours with no attempt at a truthful negotiation being offered, if we insist on the all or nothing approach while others suffer because of it, then this I believe is a true degradation of our actual humanity. If you wake up in the morning and say to yourself today is a good day to kill some Palestinian Arabs or that today is a good day to go and kill some Zionists or Jews then you have become by way of your thoughts that potentially precede your actions, an evil person. Of course self defense and preservation need to be understood, but how we consider such things is certainly just as important to be understood. Is it someone coming at you with a knife or is clearly preparing themselves to kill you and your neighbors? Or is it because they have land you may not think they are entitled to, or because you may disagree with a particular nation states or peoples position on certain matters? Let’s all try our best not to dehumanize ourselves today. No religion or doctrine or perceived culture should be rightfully able to do that.
Have a blessed day:)
Bhikkhu Aggacitto a.k.a. Brother Mark:)
Notes and References:
All websites used for reference have been archived.
9.Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257.
11.Schwartz, Adi; Wilf, Einat. The War of Return (p. 8). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I will give a note here.
Were there Jewish collaborators?
“What Morawiecki said is technically accurate, but historically unfair in light of the specific nature of the Nazi persecution of Jews, according to scholars who have studied the dozens of indictments brought forward in Israel against Nazi collaborators.” None the less, there is certainly a difference between an extreme minority of Jews who felt the need to collaborate and those in total agreement with the Nazi’s and sympathized with the ideological preference to murder as many Jews as possible. https://web.archive.org/web/20180312205812/https://www.timesofisrael.com/scholars-polish-pm-distorts-history-by-saying-jews-participated-in-holocaust/
16.”The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History” by Andrew Boston, Prometheus Books, (p. 682), 2008.
37.Meyer, Hajo G.. The End of Judaism (p. 41). Kindle Edition..
38.Meyer, Hajo G.. The End of Judaism (pp. 34-36). Kindle Edition.
39.Meyer, Hajo G.. The End of Judaism (p. 34).Kindle Edition.
40.The Invention of the Jewish People (p. 279). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.
The initial proposal: “Sand argues that it is likely that the ancestry of most contemporary Jews stems mainly from outside the Land of Israel and that a “nation-race” of Jews with a common origin never existed, and that just as most Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims, Jews are also descended from converts. According to Sand, Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, a proselytizing religion, and mass conversions to Judaism occurred among the Khazars in the Caucasus, Berber tribes in North Africa, and in the Himyarite Kingdom of the Arabian Peninsula”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People https://archive.is/Yisp5
41.The Invention of the Jewish People (p. 279). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.