Nassar, Jack Nassar, and I on Twitter

It all started here at Twitter/X..

Jack Nassar | جاك نصار, self-described "Global citizen | Peacemaker | Opinion contributor | Christian values | Hope, justice & the audacity of staying |" and a "a Semitic Palestinian Christian".

He claims that:

"My Christian family lived in Jerusalem continuously since the time of Jesus, and our family tree that we have today can trace our roots back to around 1400 in Palestine, though it goes much further than we can track. Until 1948, when Zionist terrorists ethnically cleansed them from their city, stole their home, personal belongings, clothes, documents, books, money, and properties… and turned them into refugees overnight. Today, NONE of my family lives in Jerusalem. ZERO. Not a single one. And that is because of Israel, not Muslims."

He's based in Ramallah and holds a master of arts degree in political communications from Goldsmiths, University of London. Some of Nassar's articles are here, including one entitled "How Zionism poisoned Western Christianity" among others. An academic contribution is here, on "Rawabi, The Palestinian City for the Future" (anyone seen or heard of Rawabi lately?).

He posted this to his 3,500+ followers on May 4, 2026, at 9:03:

In 1947, before the creation of Israel, Jerusalem had over 31,000 Palestinian Christians, about 20% of the population. Today, only around 9,000 remain, less than 1%. But sure, let’s pretend Christians are thriving in “the Middle East’s only democracy.” Just not in real life.

I, among others, responded and I wrote:

Jerusalem existed as the capital of the Jewish national homeland, Eretz-Yisrael or Judea, for 2000 years prior to the creation of the Arab peoples, who in 638 CE invaded Judea, called "Palestine" by the Romans, and then recreated themselves as Palestinians.

Nassar replied:

So you agree that Palestine is almost 2,000 years old?

And I countered:

The name "Palestine" was awarded by the Roman occupiers to Judea in 135 CE using an older term that geographically indicate a region along the coast from Lebanon to Gaza, but it was never a country. The name existed for almost 2000 years. Not a real country nor a people.

Nassar, continuing the back-and-forth, posted:

That argument oversimplifies both history and terminology. No political state has existed continuously for 2,000 years, borders, names, and systems of governance have always changed. Most modern nation-states took their current form in the 19th and 20th centuries, but they also weren’t “countries” in the modern sense before that either.

It’s true that the Romans used the name Syria Palaestina after 135 CE, but that was drawing on earlier geographic terms. But from that point on, “Palestine” remained a widely used name for the region across different periods and administrations, including Byzantine and later eras.

Even within Jewish tradition, the term appears in a geographic sense. The Jerusalem Talmud is often historically referred to as the “Palestinian Talmud” because it was compiled in Palestine.

As for the idea that it was “never a country” or “not a real people,” that applies broadly across history. Many peoples existed long before modern nation-states formalized identities and borders. Names and identities evolve over time, but that doesn’t make them any less real.

I clarified that:

The "Palestine Talmud" is called in Hebrew, the original language of the time as "The Jerusalem Talmud" 🤦‍♀️ (see pic) See how ignorant some people can be. "Palestine" didn't exist for the Jews until the Ottoman period.

 Nassar was a bit incensed:

You shall NOT lie! Shame on you!

And I added:

And since we're on words, can you explain to me why Arabs chose to call this land "Palestine" when there is no "P" in Arabic and therefore, its pronunciation is actually "Filastin"?

And therefore, according to your logic contra me, "Palestine" doesn't exist you must admit.

Nassar came back with:

Arabic doesn’t have a “P” sound, so it naturally shifts it to “F.” That’s basic linguistics—not a political statement. By that logic, “Paris” (Barīs) or “Plato” (Aflāṭūn) wouldn’t exist either, which is obviously nonsense.

“Filastin” (فلسطين) is simply the Arabic form of “Palestine,” used continuously for over a thousand years—long before modern politics. The name itself goes back even further to Greek and Roman usage. So this isn’t evidence of anything. It’s just a weak attempt to twist normal language differences into denial.

I really feel sorry for someone your age who uses such childish and stupid argument!

I retorted in kind:

You seem not to grasp my point.

Can you name for me one other "national people" who call their "national homeland", supposedly, by a name they cannot pronounce correctly in their own "national language"? Could it be it's all false? Or that you're just propagandizing?

His next post to me again illustrated a lack of an ability to read someone whose opinion he rejects:

You’re building your whole argument on the idea that “Filastin” is a mispronunciation. It isn’t, it’s how Arabic works. Languages adapt sounds all the time. By your logic, Germans aren’t real because they say “Deutschland,” and Greeks aren’t real because they say “Hellas.” So no, this doesn’t prove anything is “false”, it just shows you’re confusing pronunciation with identity… and using evil manipulation for political reasons.

Which is what I wrote back to him:

Just the opposite.

My oh my. You really lack a grasp of English. Okay, my English. Reread my points and try to answer my question.

His comeback:

You clearly don’t grasp how language works. “Filastin” is not a mispronunciation, it’s the natural Arabic form because the letter “p” simply doesn’t exist in Arabic. This is basic linguistics, not some grand mystery. Plenty of nations call their homeland by a different name than in English. People say Misr, not Egypt. They say Deutschland, not Germany. That doesn’t make those countries fake, it just shows languages adapt names differently.

So your entire argument is built on a misunderstanding of pronunciation versus identity. I’m honestly surprised you’re still pushing it.

And to be frank, I’m curious how someone your age is wasting my time on such a shallow claim. Are you seriously this limited in understanding, or just trying anything to push a false narrative and demonize Palestinians?

I don't think he adequately dealt with my points.

But for those wondering, my point is why Arabic-speaking pro-Palestine people insist on "Palestine"?

And for those suggesting that even "Israel" is not properly Hebrew, I would say (a) it's close enough; (b) it's the Hebrew name. "Palestine" has no cultural, religious or linguistic connection to Arabic. It's Latin and was 'absorbed' by a foreign people who came to the territory from the Arabian Peninsula.

^

^

Bundist Henryk Ehrlich on Ze'ev Jabotinsky

 Poland's Bundist leader Henryk Ehrlich:

"An eventual Jewish state cannot offer itself as a spiritual center to the Jewish masses of the 'goles' lands, and as a center for immigration (the natural growth alone of the Jewish population of Poland significantly exceeds the absorption capacity of Palestine)... The anti-Semitic Czas [newspaper] opened its columns wide for any topic of the "Duce"; the anti-Semitic Kurier Warszawski transformed Jabotinsky’s book, Di Yidishe Melukhe ["The Jewish State"], into almost the greatest literary event of our time."

Di Tsukunft, October 1938

and

In 1933, the Bundist leader Henryk Ehrlich offered a prophetic censure: “If Jewish nationalism, as a general rule, is not bloodthirsty, this is only out of necessity, not virtue; if an appropriate opportunity arose, Jewish nationalism would show its sharp teeth and nails no less than the nationalisms of other nations.”

Ehrlich added: “[Ze’ev] Jabotinsky’s brown-shirt soldiers [the Irgun militia in Palestine and Betar in Europe] are nothing more than a tragicomic caricature of Hitler’s [Sturmabteilung paramilitary organization]. But the only thing missing in order for them to become the same beasts is some muscle strength, some territory, and a political opportunity … No, we are not a chosen people. Our nationalism is just as ugly, just as harmful, and has the same inclination to fascist debauchery as a nationalism of other nations.”

Quoted in The Guardian from Molly Crabapple who sources Ehrlich's "We are Not the Chosen People”, Ehrlich's 1933 essay:

Factoid: "[Simon] Dubnow’s daughter and Erlich’s wife, Sophia Dubnow Erlich, was once courted by Ze’ev Jabotinsky."

And how did Ehrlich end his life?

Here:-

Following the outbreak of World War II, Erlich left Warsaw, as did many other Jewish public figures. Jewish Communists denounced him to the Soviet authorities in October 1939; Alter was arrested as well. Erlich was imprisoned and interrogated for two years, and was forced to write a long and comprehensive essay on the activities of the Polish Bund in which he provided a host of information on the operations of the party’s institutions. In August 1941 he was sentenced to death for participating in anti-Soviet activities, but a few weeks later the sentence was commuted to a 10-year jail term, and immediately after that he was released from prison...

For about three months in 1941, Erlich was involved in setting up what eventually became the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. The Soviet leadership viewed this committee as an important propaganda vehicle for gaining support among Western Jews, especially Jewish workers’ organizations, for Soviet war efforts against the Germans. Erlich, however, wanted the organization to have a wider scope, and wished to unite Jewish socialist groups from around the world, including the Polish Jewish Underground, to form a political bloc against Nazism. This goal worried the Soviet authorities, who were especially suspicious of the independent channels that Erlich and Alter established with British diplomats stationed in the Soviet Union. In October 1941, Erlich and Alter were rearrested. For a second time, Erlich endured harsh interrogations, which severely affected his health. Bund activists in New York and London made untiring but futile efforts to discover their fate. On 15 May 1942, a drained, tired, and ailing Henryk Erlich ended his life by hanging himself from the bars in his Kuibyshev (mod. Samara) jail cell. An official notice of his death was not published by the Soviet leadership until February 1943.

^

Jabotinsky Describes Meeting Herzl

 From his translated autobiography:-

"A very amusing comedy could be written about my adventures at the congress. First of all, I was not entitled to participate in it, as I was almost a year and a half too young with respect to the legal age for a delegate, and I do not remember who the friendly false witnesses were who attested to my being twenty-four years old; my face was that of a boy, and the official in charge of the delegates’ cards did not want to accept me until I brought the witnesses. After that I loitered by myself in the corridors of the casino; I did not know anybody except those bigwigs I had seen in Kishinev, but they were members of the executive committee and were busy with secret meetings inside. I was introduced to a thin and tall young man—with a black triangular beard and a shining bald head—called Dr. Weizmann, and I was told that he was the leader of the opposition: I felt immediately that my place was also in the opposition, although I did not know yet why. So when I saw that young man sitting with a group of his friends around a table in a café, engaged in a conversation full of intensity, I came toward them and asked, “I hope I am not intruding?” Weizmann answered: “You are”—and I went away

I tried to ascend the podium of the congress and to speak precisely on a burning question: Some months before that, Herzl had gone to Russia and talked with the minister of the interior, Plehve; the same Plehve whom we considered the instigator of the Kishinev pogrom. A passionate discussion broke out among the Zionist circles in Russia—whether it is admissible or forbidden to conduct negotiations with a monster such as him. True, both sides had agreed not to touch on this dangerous subject from the tribune of the congress, and I also knew it. Nevertheless, I decided that the interdiction did not apply to me because my experience—the experience of a journalist in Russia, skilled in the art of writing on a risky question without irritating the censor—would help me on this occasion, too, to steer clear of the reefs

My turn came when the time allotted to the speakers had already been limited to fifteen minutes, but I was not allowed even that quarter of an hour for my eloquence. I began to demonstrate that the two issues of ethics and tactics ought not to be confused. The delegates in the corner of the opposition sensed immediately what was in the mind of that young man, unknown to everybody, with a black head of hair, speaking a polished Russian as if he were reciting a poem at a gymnasium examination, and began to stir and to shout: “Enough! No more!” Panic broke out in the hall. Herzl himself, who was busy in the adjoining room, heard the noise, came out hurriedly to the tribune, and asked of one of the delegates, “What is it, what does he say?” It so happened that delegate was the same Dr. Weizmann, and he replied briefly and emphatically: “Quatsch” (“Nonsense”). At that, Herzl came toward me from behind the podium and said: “Ihre Zeit ist um” (“Your time is up”), and these were the first words and the last I ever had the privilege to hear from him. Dr. Friedman, one of the close associates of the leader, emphasized these words with the outrageous bluntness of his native Prussian: “Gehen Sie herunter, sonst werden Sie heruntergeschleppt” (“Come down or else you will be hauled down”). I came down without finishing the defense unwanted by the man in whose defense I had taken the floor.

I realized that my task in that congress was to keep silent and to observe, and that is what I did. I found a lot of things to observe there. The Sixth Congress, the last in Herzl’s life, was perhaps the first congress of adult Zionism. The name of that examination of maturity is known as Uganda. I was one of the minority that voted against Uganda and, together with the rest of the “Neinsagers” [“the no sayers”], walked out of the hall. I wondered myself at the motive hidden deep within my soul that prompted me to vote against, in spite of what I had told my electors. I had no romantic love for Eretz Yisrael then—I am not sure that I have it now—nor could I have known whether there was a danger of a split in the movement. I did not know my people, I saw my delegates for the first time, and I did not yet have time to approach any of them; and the great majority of them, among these many who, like myself, came from Russia, raised their hand to vote “for.” Nobody tried to persuade me to vote as I did. Herzl made a colossal impression on me—this word is no exaggeration, no other description would fit: colossal—I am not one of those who will easily bow to a personality. In general I do not remember, out of all the experiences I have had in my life, one man who made any impression on me whatsoever either before Herzl or after him. I felt that truly there stands before me a man of destiny, a prophet and leader by the grace of God, deserving to be followed even through error and confusion. And even today it seems to me that I hear his voice ringing in my ears, as he swore to all of us, “Im eshkachekh Yerushalayim. . . .” [“If I forget thee, o Jerusalem”]. I believe his oath; everyone believed. Yet still I voted against him, but I do not know why: “just so”—that same “because” that is stronger than a thousand reasons

It is a strange thing: I felt that, after that vote, the congress reached such a height that the level at which it began simply could not be compared to it. In spite of the split, the tears, and the indignation, some deeper inner cohesion between the “Neinsager” and the “Jasager” [“the yes sayers”] came about. Perhaps they learned to have more respect for one another or for the movement than they had before; and it seems to me the movement as a whole also attained greater elevation on that day, when the delegates of the people mourned their first political victory. I am sure that Chamberlain, the author of the Uganda proposal, and Balfour and many more statesmen in England and in other countries, only on that day realized what Zionism meant, and that the same is true also of many veterans of the movement."

^

Yes, Palestine Was Considered Southern Syria

"the Arab Independence Party (Ḥizb al-Istiqlāl al-‘Arabiyya). Al-Istiqlāl was created with three goals, as expressed on the official statement registering it as a political organization on 13 August 1932: 

“1) The independence of the Arab countries; 2) The Arab countries are one and inseparable; 3) Palestine is an Arab country and an integral part of Syria.”...as the idea of a “Greater Syria” (Sūriya al-Kabīra or Bilad al-Sham) – of which Palestine comprised the southern section..."

Source

^

Anti-Zionism in Parliament, 1923

On June 21, 1923, Lord Islington, among others, spoke in the British House of Lords to move to reconsider the Mandate over Palestine.

One of his points was to separate "Zionism" from the Jews residing in the area, as if Zionism is not the Jewish national liberation movement, as if Jews do not want an independent polity in their historic homeland and as if Zionism is illegitimate.  And as if only super isolationist insular religious messianic-beleiving Jews are the only 'true' and 'genuine' Jews. As if only non-Jewish anti-Zionists have the right and privilege of telling the vast majority of Jews that they're wrong about the centrality of Israel.

Here is how he phrased it:

The Jewish people in Palestine have lived in the past in harmony with the Arab community. They have enjoyed in largo measure the same privileges as their Ottoman fellow subjects and, I venture to say also as a fact, they never agitated for Zionism. I do not think—I speak subject to correction—that there has ever been a demand from the Jewish Community in Palestine for the introduction of a Zionist Home in that country. The whole agitation has conic from outside, from Jews in other parts of the world. I go further, and say—I think I have said it before; if so, I repeat—that a very large number of the Jewish community in Palestine to-day look with considerable aversion not only upon the Zionist Home but upon the Jews who are being introduced into the country from Eastern Europe.

That claim, as presented, continues to be voiced, by Jews and non-Jews to this day - and we'll ignore his historical untruths and prejudice against East European Jewry.

^

David Ben-Gurion Talking with Brit Shalom

David Ben-Gurion to the members of the binationalist "Brit Shalom" in November 1929:

"But if in your formula you want to establish the equal value of the land for Jews and Arabs, then you are again missing the point and distorting the truth. Israel for the Jewish people and Israel for the Arab people are not the same thing.

The Arab nation is holding a multitude of vast countries, whose area in Asia alone is about a third of the area of ​​all of Europe. The economic, cultural and political existence of the Arab nation, its national identity and statehood are not tied to and do not depend on the Land of Israel. Our country is but a small region in the vast and gigantic territory inhabited by Arabs – and, by the way, exceptionally sparsely. Only one fragment of the Arab people – perhaps seven or eight percent (if we consider only the Arabs of Asian countries), lives in the Land of Israel and is tied to it. This is not the case with the Jewish people.

For the entire Jewish nation – in all its generations and diasporas – this is the one and only land with which its fate and historical future as a nation are tied. Only in this land can it renew and sustain its own life, its national spirit and its unique culture, only here could it establish its sovereignty and state freedom. And whoever obscures this truth – determines the soul of the nation.

We are commanded to preserve the rights and equality of our Arab neighbors, but we would be lying to ourselves if we said that Israel is the same for the Arab people as Israel is for the Hebrew people. If this comparison is what the formula of binationalism refers to, then it is nothing but a distortion of the truth and a neutering of the purpose. Instead of this distorted formula, I say: Israel is destined for the Hebrew people and the Arabs who live within it."

Sounds like Jabotinsky to me.

^

Jabotinsky's London Residence

From 1915 and until the beginning of 1918, Ze'ev Jabotinsky resided in London in order to promote the idea of a Jewish fighting force within the British Army that would participate in the campaign in Ottoman Palestine. It finally was authorized in the summer of 1917 and the announcement was published in the London Gazette on August 23, 1917.

During the years 1915 - 1917, Jabotinsky lived on Justice Walk and for two months, Chaim Weizmann moved in to share lodgings. During 1917, Yosef Trumpeldor moved in for a while.

^