The Beinart/Nerdeen conversation

Within Our Lifetime/Palestine Nerdeen Kiswani tweeted, reacting to Zohran Mamdani's condemnation of the swastika daubings:

There’s no “scourge of antisemitism” in NYC. Acts like these, while reprehensible, are often weaponized to justify Zionist narratives and repression of Palestine solidarity. Many past “antisemitic” scares turned out to be fake, like the Israeli Jewish teenager who made hundreds of bomb threats to U.S. synagogues in 2017. Norman Finkelstein has spoken about how “antisemitism” in the U.S. is largely a political tool, not a real social phenomenon. Mamdani shouldn’t be validating this framing.

Peter Beinart responded:

Your response to a swastika at a yeshiva is to condemn the mayor for condemning it? Because that might imply that antisemitism is a "real social phenomenon?" Yes, like other bigotries, it's a "real social phenomenon." If you don't believe me, ask the 1 million people who follow Nick Fuentes on this platform

Nerdeen reacted:

Antisemitism is not a systemic structural issue in the U.S. everyone knows this except for professional victims. There is a nazi problem in the U.S. and sadly many of these Nazis are Jewish people. In fact many Jewish people proudly proclaim that 95% of Jews are Nazis (zionists) which even I said was a bit much. If you want to truly fight against the nazi problem, I suggest you start with your own community. 

 

Nerdeen continued:

You really have some nerve, grifting and writing books about “after” the genocide of my people as it’s still ongoing, to completely reframe what I was saying. I never condemned his condemnation of the graffiti, I explicitly called it reprehensible myself. I took issue with the implication that there’s an antisemitism problem in NYC and cited Norman Finkelstein on the idea that it’s not a social phenomenon. He talks about it in the context of the US, I referenced NYC.
There’s no structural disadvantage to being Jewish like there is to being Palestinian, and you know that. You’re being purposely obtuse. You can pander to the anti genocide line but you’re still a liberal zionist.

Nerdeen adds:

For those who are new here, especially the self-proclaimed anti- or “non-Zionists” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), antisemitism is not a structural issue in the United States. Jews are positioned as white in America, holding access to power, wealth, and protection under the same systems that oppress Black, brown, and Indigenous people. That doesn’t mean antisemitism doesn’t exist in individual attitudes, but it isn’t systemic in the way anti-Blackness or Islamophobia are. It’s not upheld by the state or capital, it’s weaponized by them to silence criticism of Israel and uphold Zionism.  

It may be still going on.

P.S.  Nerdeen's core belief:

For those that are new here, saying “Israel has a right to exist, just not as a Jewish state” isn’t anti-Zionism, it’s liberal Zionism. The question isn’t what kind of Israel, it’s how Israel came to exist, which is through genocide. Anti-Zionism necessitates decolonization.

P.P.S.   But is she really that bad? Here:

^

What Is Meant by Zionists by the term 'Colonization'?

 Anti-Zionists and the pro-Palestine propagandist point to the use by Zionist leaders of the term "colonization" as an indication they were, well, colonizing.

Here's a Ze'ev Jabotinsky quotation:

That's from 1922, his first visit to America at the head of a delegation of the Keren HaYesod. As an extra "bonues", he compares what is to be done in the Mandate territory to what was done to America's native population.

As can be readily comprehended, by the use of the term, Jabotinsky is referring not to a process whereby a country that does not belong to you is taken over and subjugated - militarly, economically or otherwise and its popualtion is done away with, physically or socially - but simply the various forms of rebuilding a country through agriculture and industry. It is the mechanics of how it is done not an imperial design to transfer a population from another part of the world into a territory you have no connection with as England, Holland, Belgium, Germany yand other Europeans countries did. And Arabs were involved in sharing this economic resurgence of the country even within the Histadrut but eventaully, their political opposition overroad their good sense.

^

^

Who was a "Palestinian Arab"?

Aside from the argument whether the Arabs resident in the area of historic Palestine (there was never a geopolitical country of 'Palestine') conisdered themselves as "Palestinian" or "Syrian" or "Southern Syrian", or "El-Shamites" or whether others viewed them as such, I have found a 1940 reference to the term.

Interstingly enough, it comes within the framework of the application of apartheid - whether Jews could purchase land in various Zones following the adoption of the 1939 White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfers Regulations.

Article 9 reads:

For the purposes of these regulations :-

"Palestinian Arab" shall be deemed to be an Arab who is ordinarily resident in Palestine. In case of any dispute as to whether a person is an Arab or whether he is ordinarily resident in Palestine, the question shall be referred to the High Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final;

Residency is the defining feature of identity. Not nationality, not culture, not identification, not langauge, history or religion.

As we know, it was only in 1925 that a Palestine Nationality Law was enacted for the Mandate.

By the way, on March 6, 1940, MP Noel-Baker (Derby) moved a motion in the British Parliament: 

That this House regrets that, disregarding the expressed opinion of the Permanent Mandates Commission that the policy contained in the White Paper on Palestine was inconsistent wtih the terms of the Mandate, and without the authority of the Council of the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government have authorised the issue of regulations controlling the transfer of land which discriminate unjustly against one section of the inhabitants of Palestine...

It would seem logical that if residency was the defining term, Jews were also Palestinians, at least at that time. So, was their nationality "Palestinian"?

Mamdani the Elder in 2004

It seems that I never uploaded this post from 2015. But now that his son is running for election as New York City's next mayor with his 2023 Not On Our Dime Bill lurking, I realized it should appear as better late than never.

The things one finds as in “Representing Settlers” by Assaf Harel -

Mahmood Mamdani (2004. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: Post-Apartheid Perspectives on America and Israel, PoLAR 27(1):1-15), for instance, opened a recent lecture by claiming that “The violence of the settler and the suicide bomber, more than any other, has come to define the contemporary work of terrorism and counter-terrorism.” [he establishes equality and equivalency] The settler has come to represent unbridgeable difference from the secular, liberal humanists of the West. [does the PLO, PA and/or Hamas do something to Western liberalism?] At the same time the settlement project in Israeli post-1967 occupied territories is seen as a break from the previous trajectory of the Israeli state. These depictions have become widely acceptable, especially in liberal academic circles. But they are not only analytically weak, they actually participate in a political purpose that might be unintended. As we have seen, many studies (Lustick 1988; Lustick 1993; Silberstein 1993; Sivan 1995; Feige 2003; Zertal and Eldar 2007) emphasize ideological differences or point to the settler project inthe Occupied Territories as having fundamentally altered the foundations of Israeli society. This discursive construction depicts religious settlers and their project as different from legitimate Israeli state practices by inscribing a moral high ground for those who vilify and denounce the settlers in the Occupied Territories.

The “settlers’” project, it would seem, is not really Zionism at all, [as if all that went on previously, of Jews emigrating and repatriating back to the Jewish historic homeland, resettling and creating agricultural communities throughout the centuries is not Zionism] and so the Zionism of mainstream Israel is morally elevated in its distinction from beliefs and practices in the Occupied Territories. Religiously motivated settlers are often condemned for the violence of their settlement project. This includes both the structural violence of territorial expansion and the face-to-face violence between settlers and Palestinians. Yet if we move beyond demonizing religious settlers and seek instead to apply a post-structural istanalytical framework to them, then we must seek commonalities with those who currently oppose these settlers.

Did Peter Beinart read that and become influenced? 

^

Mahmood Mamdani on Israel

Mahmood Mamdani, the father of, specializes, among other topics, in "settler-colonialsinm" and I thought I'd like to see what he thinks/writes about Israel and Zionism.

From his 2015 article, "Settler Colonialism: Then and Now":-

Walzer considered the colonial question to be a historical relic: the rights of “aboriginal peoples like the Native Americans or the Maori in New Zealand . . . are eroded with time.” This erasure in time, this dimming of memory, according to Walzer, was true also of  Palestinians inside Israel but not, for some reason, of ancient Israelites. Walzer never gives us a reason for this Israeli exceptionalism.

I'll provide a reason: Jews never yielded or surrendered their national identity, their longing for their homeland and, more importantly, the traveling to the Land of Israel, residing in it after emigrating to it and supporting it financially in all the centuries since the loss of Jewish political independence in 135 CE. Never.

Their proto-Zionism endeavors were made to and known to many non-Jewish heads of state and politicians and military leaders and religious leaders for 1800 years.

On the other hand, no one knew of a group of people called "Palestinians". In fact, "Palestine" was a replacement name for the Holy Land which was the Jewish homeland. They knew Arabs lived in the area but they came in the 7th century as conquerors and occupiers, just as the Romans, the Byzantines and the Persians before them.

A few pages later, Mamdani the Elder writes:-

"It is worth recalling the statement of Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, the former president of Tanzania, to a visiting Palestinian delegation in the 1960s, that Palestinians had suffered a fate worse than had South Africans. In Nyerere’s words: We only lost our independence, you lost your country!"

They didn't actually lose a country. They rejected a state, twice, in 1937 and 1947, intending that the Jews should not have their state after partition proposals were made to reduce violence. If they hadn't gone to war on November 30, 1947, and lost, they would have been in their towns and villages - in Israel.

At the end of the 1948 war, Arabs were left in Israel despite hundreds of thousands fleeing. In the eastern neigborhoods of Jerusalem, Hebron and other locations where Jews managed to continue to reside during the Mandate period in Judea and Samaria, Jews were completely ethnically cleansed from those areas. They lost home and a country that had been promised to them by the international community of nations.

Another excerpt:-

"in Israel, the state guarantees equal political rights for Jewish and Palestinian citizens. But that is where equal treatment ends. Like American Indians in reservations, Palestinian Israelis may have the right to vote or even to be elected to office, but they live under a state of exception that denies them constitutionally defensible civil rights."

What 'civil rights' are denied? And what of the civil rights of Jews in Jordan? Syria? Libya? Iraq? And on and on. Oh, and Arabs in Israel do not live in reservations.

I won't go through his other articles but think it enough to point to crooked thinking, misleading argumenation and misrepresentation of history and the present.

As for his son, Zohran, perhaps the apple has not fallen far from the tree?

^

Taking Israelis Hostage ... in 1948

From the pages of the Palestine Post in November 1948, reporting on an event on the night of November 5:

and then the next month:

^

Arabs Doing Arab Propaganda

I found this timeline here and selected on minor section to highlight how Arab propaganda works.

Item 1:

Jewish existed in Europe, and in every single location where a Jewish community existed in the Diaspora, for some 1800 cenutries since the loss of Jewish politicall sovereignty over Judea in 135 CE. Before that, Jewish nationalism caused the exiles in Babylon from the First Temple's destrauction in 586 BCE to 'return to Zion'.

Item 2:

The first wave of immigration is a misnomer. Jews constantly, consistently and continuously returned to the Land of Israel over the centuries.  Just one example, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman Girondi, the Ramban, moved to Israel in 1267 and visited several cities including Hebron.

Item 3:

The seven 'colonies' referred to are meant to indicate Jews are recent. First of all, 'colonies' is misleading as that was the term in contemporary usage for farming communities. Second, Petah Tikva, also a 'colony', was founded already in 1878 and Jews were resiiding in Jerusalem, Tiberias, Hebron and Peki'in in the Galilee for centuries in addition to other small communities.

I could make this long and detailed but I think my point is clear: Arab propaganda corrupts the facts, lies, misrepresents, leaves out anything that will distrupt their messaging and twists things about.

^

^

The Naqba: Caused by Israel or by the Arabs' Own Weaknesses?

I maintain: the "naqba" was a defeat of the Arabs by their own weaknesses as asserted by Constantin Zureiq in his summer of 1948 book.

Now another source: From the U. of Chicago's The Journal of Politics, Volume 18, Number 3 (1956) review of Dynamite in the Middle East by Khalil Totah, 1955:

And another review, from Political Research Quarterly, University of Utah, Volume 9 Issue 2, June 1956:

"...his account is notable for an equal frankness concerning Arab shortcomings, particularly the corruption in Arab governments and the illiteracy and poverty of the Arab masses.

Naively or deliberately he omits the entire Jewish record of transforming unpopulated swamps and desert land into oases of human settlement in Palestine, as well as the historic fact that the Arabs themselves came as conquerors into Palestine during the eighth century and imposed their national habits as well as the Islamic religion on the conquered of the area.

At no time will Totah grant the Jews with their historic and religious connection in Palestine the right of a dignified national and cultural existence.

...This reviewer can only express his utmost bewilderment at how an educated Arab who professes to be a Christian can advocate the most ruthless power politics with complete disregard for the human and ethical problem. In spite or perhaps because of all this, this book should be widely read.

Apart from conveying a solid analysis of Arab nationalism and a vivid picture of the dynastic rivalries and economic problems in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, the book affords a most interesting insight into the mentality of the intellectual leadership of the Arab world and its position in the great East-West struggle of our time.

^