[Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University, Israel. For information about his book, Israel’s Occupation, and more www.israelsoccupation.info ]

On June 8, 1967, just a few hours after the Israeli military captured Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, Haram al Sharif, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan visited the site. Noticing that troops had hung an Israeli flag on the cap of the Al-Aqsa shrine, Dayan asked one of the soldiers to remove it, adding that displaying the Israeli national symbol for all to see was an unnecessarily provocative act.

Those who have visited the Occupied Territories in the past years have no doubt noticed Israeli flags fluttering over almost every building Israel occupies as well as above every Jewish settlement. Ariel Sharon’s highly publicized visit to the Al-Aqsa compound in September 2000 – an act that served as the trigger for the second Intifada – could be considered the final step in a process that has ultimately undone Dayan’s strategic legacy of trying to normalize the occupation by concealing Israel’s presence. “Don’t rule them,” Dayan once said, “let them lead their own lives.”

Another significant change that has transpired over the past 41 years involves the Israeli government’s relationship to trees, the symbol of life. If in 1968 Israel helped Palestinians in the Gaza Strip plant some 618,000 trees and provided farmers with improved varieties of seeds for vegetables and field crops, during the first three years of the second Intifada Israel destroyed more than ten percent of Gaza’s agricultural land and uprooted over 226,000 trees.

The appearance and proliferation of the flag on the one hand, and the razing of trees on the other, signify a fundamental transformation in Israel’s attempts to control the occupied Palestinian inhabitants. It appears as if Israel decided to alter its methods of upholding the occupation, replacing a politics of life, which aimed to secure the existence and livelihood of the Palestinian inhabitants, with a politics of death.

This shift manifests itself in numerous ways. During the occupation’s first decade, for example, Israel tried to decrease Palestinian unemployment in order to manage the population, but following the new millennium it intentionally produced unemployment in the Occupied Territories. Israel provided immunization for cattle and poultry during the first years after the 1967, but in 2008 it created conditions that prevented people from receiving immunization.

Changes like these clearly reflect the radical transformation in the repertoires of violence deployed in the Occupied Territories. Whereas an estimated 650 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the first two decades following the 1967 War, during the six-year period between 2001 and 2007, Israel has, on average, killed more than 650 Palestinians per year....

N. Friedman - 6/19/2008

Again, Omar, you confuse opinions with facts. And, when you assert actual facts - which is rather rare -, they typically have no sources and, in many instances, are not accurate.

Were you to assert actual facts, backed by sources, to support arguments, rather than assert opinions as facts and then argue from your opinions, there would be room to consider what you have to say. You, however, refuse to do that. I can assure you that even the crowd that supports Palestinian Arabs over Israelis recognizes that your arguments are not real arguments - and for the very reasons I state.

You can certainly do better.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/19/2008

Any thing, and every thing, that comes to a .....mind but admit that his attempt to deceive readers by presenting data unrelated to his allegation HAS failed and his ruse seen through for what it is:...a cheap ploy!

art eckstein - 6/18/2008

Omar cannot think very well. The figures show that more Jews fled or were expelled from Arab lands than Palestinians fled or were expelled in the "Naqba."

As for my statement that a majority of the Israeli Jewish population are refugees from the Middle East, I have repeatedly told Omar--who doubts this and refuses to acknowledge FACTS--that all he has to do is google "Israel + demography" and he will see that I am perfectly correct.

But this simple act Omar refuses to do--because the reality is that he does not WANT to know the answer here, or that I am perfectly correct in my demographic assertion: he doesn't like any of the implications, so he desperately twists and turns and throws venom as if that were an answer. Illuminating as to his psychology. Sigh.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/18/2008

Apparently a certain Professor can NOT tell the difference between two statements:
1-" The majority of the Jewish population of Israel is from the Middle East"
And
2- "Jewish Populations of Arab Countries: 1948 and 2008 "
when (2) is presented as evidence to substantiate the term "majority" in (1) although at that juncture it was a question of figures needed to support (1)and the figures in (2) were presented; hoping that no body will notice the difference!

Does one have to go into a 1+1=2 demonstration and say that :
1-"- The majority of the Jewish population of Israel "
DOES NOT equal, neither in theory nor in practice, the
2-"Jewish Populations of Arab Countries: 1948 and 2008 "
for one to stand in lieu of the other??

Apparently one DOES have to!

However the fact that a certain gentleman came hurriedly to the rescue by trying to change the subject
still does not make (1) equal to (2)!

rena stern - 6/17/2008

From a christian point of view, it irks me to no avail regarding all the wars that are taking place in this world today.

The Israel's need for a land to connect with and feel closer to god, without the interference of communists ideals, greed and hatred is being overlooked, due to bribery. As long as illicit money is available and distributed throughout the world there will be turmoil.

At times, it's just too much to bear. Varing relious beliefs and acts are swaying too many down the wrong path, instead of connecting with one god for world peace.

art eckstein - 6/16/2008

The last paragraph sums up Omar's epistemological and intellectual dysfunction quite clearly, N.F. Nicely put.

N. Friedman - 6/16/2008

Professor,

Omar does worse even than you allege. He confuses facts and events with an interpretation of facts. Hence, asserting that Israel is an "implant" or colonial is an interpretation of facts, not a fact. By contrast, asserting that many Jews lived in Europe and then moved to what became or is Israel is a fact.

Consider that fact a bit further. It can, contrary to Omar's "implant" interpretation, be asserted that Jews exercised the basic human right of migration to a place where refuge was a available and also exercised the basic human right to participate in the politics of that land. There is no reason whatsoever to interpret such event as either colonial or as the creation of an "implant." By the way, Omar, calling something an "implant" is not insulting, even if such is your intention. By contrast, seeing nothing wrong with the HAMAS covenant and its calls for genocide suggests a people - given their support of such group - who have descended far into barbarism.

Further commenting on the implant vs. refuge interpretation, there is a similar story that can be found in the Islamic founding stories, with Muslims persecuted in Mecca finding refuge in Yathrib - a largely Jewish community. The Muslims migrants sought a role - in fact, a dominant role - in the governance of Yathrib and, eventually, they came to dominant and, in time, there was bitterness between the various clans and tribes which led to the cleansing of the area of Jews. One might, were we to follow Omar's warped logic in a consistent fashion, call the Muslim migrants and the regime founded in Yathrib an "implant" of a community where it had no business being.

No doubt, however, Omar would respond that such an argument is a slur. Were I to so argue, I think it would be a slur, just as I think that Omar's argument that Jews - the majority of whom are from Arab countries - and the country they built are an implant.

In any event, Omar does not really seem to understand the difference between a fact or event and the interpretation thereof. Or, to put it more simply, most of what Omar asserts as being fact is interpretation and, in most instances, it is based on something other than facts.

art eckstein - 6/16/2008

I have no idea what Omar is talking about.

The fact that more than half the Jewish population of Israel are refugees from the Middle East, who were robbed and either expelled by Arab and Muslim governments, or fled pogroms, and arrived penniless in Israel, is CERTAINLY relevant both for understanding the nature of Israel as a Middle Eastern country (not a European colonial state).

It is also relevant for putting the Palestinian refugee problem into a context. That is: in 1948-1960 there were more Jewish refugees from the Middle East in the Middle East than there were Palestinians refugees--about 100,000 more. The other difference other than numbers was not only that these Middle Eastern Jewish refugees had been inoffensive neighbors of their Arab and Muslim co-citizens, whereas the Palestinians were refugees because they had lost a genocidal-aimed war they themselves started.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/16/2008

Omar is saying, inter alia, that you attempt to bluff your way out of a fallacy by deliberately providing unrelated data; hoping nobody will notice!
That is very unprofessorial, Prof.
Plain enough!

omar ibrahim baker - 6/16/2008

Prof

RE Taba....Is that your way of admitting another one of your "fabrications"??
Better be careful with your "facts" in the future Prof!!

art eckstein - 6/15/2008

Mr. Butler,

Retreating behind a barrage of adolescent, snide remarks is no substitute for actually seeking to answer my substantive facts and arguments. This you do not even attempt to do.

james joseph butler - 6/15/2008

Art,
If I need comic relief in the Middle East you're my guy.
Thank You
jjb

art eckstein - 6/15/2008

I have no idea what Omar is saying here, unless it is that only Arabs belong in the Middle East, and therefore it is irrelevant that the majority of the Jewish population of Israel is actually Middle Eastern in origin.

art eckstein - 6/15/2008

Sorry, Omar--I didn't notice this drivel before.

As Amin al-Mahdy wrote in Al-Hayat (Lodnon), in Sept. 2002:

"Arafat has admitted his mistake in refusing Clinton’s proposals (Ha’aretz, June 21, 2002). But what he should have explained was why he refused, why it was wrong, and why it took him two years to realize it. Now the situation has deteriorated to a degree that goes beyond the mistake of rejecting the Clinton peace plan. That rejection was part of a tragic cycle of mistakes that involved resorting to violence (as the Mitchell Report said) and a direct alliance with the Islamic political groups before the negotiations. This tragic cycle of mistakes overthrew the idea of peaceful negotiations and did a lot to bring down the Israeli left and the peace movement."

art eckstein - 6/15/2008

Sorry, Omar--I didn't notice this drivel before.

As Amin al-Mahdy wrote in Al-Hayat (Lodnon), in Sept. 2002:

"Arafat has admitted his mistake in refusing Clinton’s proposals (Ha’aretz, June 21, 2002). But what he should have explained was why he refused, why it was wrong, and why it took him two years to realize it. Now the situation has deteriorated to a degree that goes beyond the mistake of rejecting the Clinton peace plan. That rejection was part of a tragic cycle of mistakes that involved resorting to violence (as the Mitchell Report said) and a direct alliance with the Islamic political groups before the negotiations. This tragic cycle of mistakes overthrew the idea of peaceful negotiations and did a lot to bring down the Israeli left and the peace movement."

omar ibrahim baker - 6/15/2008

Professor
I notice you have hitherto avoided speadily responding, as you often do, to my post "Re: Camp David and Taba (#123839)
by omar ibrahim baker on June 15, 2008 at 4:44 AM"

omar ibrahim baker - 6/15/2008

This answer from the Professor (#123841)by art eckstein on June 15, 2008 at 10:10 AM)to my post (The Professor’s Desperate Defense of the Indefensible! (#123838)
by omar ibrahim baker on June 15, 2008 at 4:32 AM

is extremely satisfying to me.

It shows that he attempted to bluff his way around one point and totally avoided the other , thus belying his own earlier statements and admitting their fallacy by:

1-Going around the challenge to substantiate his false claim that:

" The majority of the Jewish population of Israel is from the Middle East": (Statement a)

by giving us instead an unrelated figure to substantiate that false claim: the total of:
"Jewish Populations of Arab Countries
: 1948 and 2008 " (statement b)

Thus deliberately avoiding to address, and thus belying, his own statement (a) by providing figures in (b) unrelated to his statement (a).

2- He totally admits the inanity of his own logic, about Jewish emigrants/colons versus Palestinian refugees and his use of the phrase ".. from the Middle East" instead of "Arab" to prove the "non alien" character of his Jewish emigrants/colons into Palestine, and flees away from it by totally avoiding the whole point he made frequently; thus once more demonstrating the unsoundness of his own logic and the lack of veracity of his own words by, deservedly, neglecting them.

What we have here is an attempt to con one’s way away from a false BUT very frequently used assertion and a desertion of another often used one.
One would have expected an admission of “error” re statement (a) instead of, hoping that nobody will notice , a failed attempt to con one’s way .

This is the kind of Professor we have here; he knowingly gives unrelated figures and is quick to abandon his own statements!

art eckstein - 6/15/2008

If someone actually wishes to learn the vicious Arab-Muslim background to the tragedy outlined above--a tragedy which has been conveniently forgotten by most, but in the case of Omar is simply ahistorically denied--see:

"Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries" by Ya'akov Meron Middle East Quarterly
September 1995

Meron holds a doctorate in law from the Faculté de Droit de Paris.

art eckstein - 6/15/2008

Omar does not want to deal with the Arab theft of the property of the Mizrahi Jews, or the fact that as a group of refugees they formed a larger number than Palestinians displaced by the Naqba: 850,000 vs. 750,000. Nobody talks about the "right of return" for THEM. Nobody talks about "the right of compensation" for them, though some Arab or Muslim is enjoying their stolen property as we speak. They are very conveniently forgotten, or turned into "colons" by Omar.

Jewish Populations of Arab Countries: 1948 and 2008

Aden 8,000 in 1948 0 in 2008
Algeria 140,000[ in 1948 0 in 2008
Bahrain 550-600 in 1948 30 in 2008
Egypt 75,000 in 1948 75 in 2008
Iraq 140,000 in 1948 100 in 2008
Lebanon 50,000 in 1948 100 in 2008
Libya 35,000 0 in 2008
Morocco 260,000 in 1948 6,000 in 2008
Syria 20,000 in 1948 25 in 2008
Tunisia 75,000 in 1948 1500 in 2008
Yemen 50,000 in 1948 300 in 2008

Total
758,000 - 875,000 in 1948 8000 in 2008

Omar has asserted that these people are all voluntarial colons, not penniless refugees. He can see only the Palestinian Naqba, not the tragedy on both sides. The difference is that the Palestinians launched a genocidal war and lost, whereas the people above were peaceful neighbors.

Mizrahi Jews constituted up to 70% of the Israeli population into the 1990s. They are not "aliens" to the Middle East. They are Middle Eastern refugees. The Russian immigration has lowered their percentage of the population. But they still are over half of the Jewish population because of their higher birth rate.

Omar, just google "demographics of Israel".

omar ibrahim baker - 6/15/2008

The “multiawarded” Professor is at it again, extrapolating facts and figures in a manner to serve his allegations!
The QUESTION is: IS HE fabricating and falsifying again ?

He claims categorically that:

"they (the Palestinians) refused the Camp David and Taba agreements,"

That they failed to agree with the Israelis at Clinton's Camp David is a fact.
However since the "Taba" he refers to here must be the post Clinton's Camp David Taba; the question arises:!

Did they refuse that???

Or is it that by then a new Israeli election was called and the Barak government was NOT in a position to officially ratify any agreement.
If my memory does NOT fail me it was the latter case and the Government that came out from those elections, Sharon's (?), is the one that refused to recognize what was "agreed" in Barak's "Taba" and proceed there from !
Would the Professor elucidate for the question here pertains to the truthfulness and accuracy of what he says !

omar ibrahim baker - 6/15/2008

The Professor has recently reverted to repeating a fallacy that presumably bolsters his crumbling defense of the colonialist cum racist Zionist implanted regime presently ruling over Palestine.
He claims:” The majority of the Jewish population of Israel is from the Middle East--refugees kicked out of Arab Muslim lands between 1948 and 1960, left penniless and robbed by the Arabs and Muslims. “
(Re: Israeli Colonialism (#123823) by art eckstein on June 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM.)

Apart from the obvious fallacy of “majority” in his often repeated statement his statement is worthy of examination as typical of the disinformation cum misinformation style he invariably reverts to.
Among other things;
-He was challenged to substantiate the statement:” The majority of the Jewish population of Israel is from the Middle East—“
-He was queried whether that statement is true, which it is NOT, and still holds after the influx of Soviet Jews and those from other ex Soviet block countries.

He consistently failed to answer both challenges.

However the point to note here is that he cautiously used the phrase “ from the Middle East” and NOT “ARAB” , as would be expected in a rational, though false, argument; considering that it was in response to the valid claim that Israel is an ALIEN entity planted in Arab Palestine.
His choice of phrase is definitely meant to
-deny the all too obvious Arab identity of Palestine
and
-to increase the size of the “water shed” from which supposedly “non alien” Jews emigrated to and colonized Palestine .

According to the Professor’s inane logic Greeks, Turks and Iranians would NOT be “aliens” to Palestine. (Knowing him he might even include Ethiopians!!)

However taking the Professor’s illogical logic, despite its innate fallacy, to its logical end what does it imply?
It would certainly imply the “right” of, say, Bulgarians or Austrians to forcedly emigrate into part of France or Belgium to colonize it and settle therein ,always against the express will of the French people, and declare their own nation/state considering that both Bulgarians and Austrians are not “alien” but are “from Europe” or , for that matter, the “right” of Brazilians (or Mexicans) to forcedly emigrate into to Rhode Island or Connecticut , against the express will of its indigenous population, colonize, settle and declare their own Brazilian or Mexican nation/state therein considering that the Brazilians or Mexicans are not “alien” being “from America”!

This is the kind of “logic” the poor Professor had to revert to in his desperate defense of the colonialist and racist ALIEN implant that Israel is to Palestine and to its Arab environment .
(I wonder whether his unfortunate students read him!!)

art eckstein - 6/14/2008

Mr. Butler,

I was merely summarizing your position in a hypothetical quotation, which is perfectly legitimate. Anyone reading this thread would understand that. But if you now want to take credit for that literal quotation so be it.

And in what way was that hypothetical quotation *substantively* inaccurate?

I've proven my case. Denial can't cut it; you don't answer any of my substantive arguments; and I cited the EU definition precisely, and you fit.

End of story.

james joseph butler - 6/14/2008

Ridiculous is someone who persists in using quotation marks without including the writer's(that would be me not you Art)actual words within the quotation marks.

Dear Art, I dare you to cite, that means using my words not your paraphrase of my words, a single instance of my "anti-semitism". Oh and Art while you're at it, I'd be very pleased if you employed the Art Eckstein definition of anti-semitism rather than the E.U. definition because you know those Europeans, half of them are anti-semites, right Art?

art eckstein - 6/14/2008

1. Applying selective indignation and different standards of judgment to Jews and to non-Jews, applying selective indignation and differing standards of judgment to Israel than to any other state, are official definitions of anti-semitism under the EU. You fit the bill.

2. You even manage to blame Israel for the tragedy of what happened to the Middle Eastern Jews. No anger towards the Arabs who stole their property, or created more refugees than 1948 did, and who are still enjoying that property as we speak. NO discussion about "heritage of theft" with those states from you, NO discussion of what the cultural impact might be concerning THOSE states from you, either. Do you see now? Again, you fit the bill according to the official EU definition.

You may want it some other way, but that's the way it is.

3. You quibble about the use of quotation-marks; I was giving you a break. To say "I'm not an anti-semite because I support the Palestinians and they are semites" is just as pure sophistry as "I'm not an anti-semite because I support the Arabs and they are semites". There is no difference, except the first quote is even more ridiculous. How about: "Although I apply selective indigation to Jews, reserving my indignation for Jews, and my anger for Jews, and apply harsher judgments on Jews and Israel than on Arabs or Palestinians, I'm not an anti-semite because Arabs and Palestinians are semites."

You make yourself look ridiculous, sir.

james joseph butler - 6/14/2008

The correct quotation from the lyrical reconnoitering rabbis is, "The bride is beautiful but she is taken."

james joseph butler - 6/14/2008

Mr Eckstein,
First of all either learn how to use quotations or don't use them. You paraphrased me, and then added quotation marks. In doing so you revealed your own agenda by substituting Arabs for Palestinians. The Palestinians had their land taken in 1948 and again in 1967 and in today's news an additional 1,300 homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.
Having lived with and dated Jews, I grew up in New York, I object to being called an anti-semite because it implies a hatred of Jews and Judaism. The way the term is used in the U.S. and the West is symptomatic of our blinkered view of the world. Semites include Jews and Arabs.
You still have not quoted the words that reveal my "anti-semitism". You may be confusing my anti-zionism with "anti-semitism". I'm sure you know there are plenty of Jews who share my view that taking land from an indigenous population is wrong including the rabbis sent to scout the land of Zion as a prospective homeland for the Jews in the early 20th century who described. Palestine as, "beautiful but the bride is taken".
The fact that the 1948 war precipitated violence and theft against Middle Eastern Jews is just another sad outcome of this tragedy. Uri Averny has stated that the Israeli leadership's prediliction for venal crime is a manifestation of his homeland's heritage of theft.

art eckstein - 6/14/2008

The majority of the Jewish population of Israel is from the Middle East--refugees kicked out of Arab Muslim lands between 1948 and 1960, left penniless and robbed by the Arabs and Muslims. You persist in calling them exploitative colonists. You demand with quivering righteousness that compensation be given to the Palestinians because in 1948 they launched a genocidal war and lost; meanwhile you have been informed that some Arab Muslim is enjoying the property stolen from his peaceful Jewish neighbors, but you have no comment to make on that.

The argument that "I'm not an anti-semite because I support the Arabs and THEY are semites" is pure sophistry.

art eckstein - 6/14/2008

Clarification: by "they refused the Camp David and Taba agreements," I mean of course that the Palestinians refused those agreements, and then began genocidal suicide bombing against Jews.

This is a tactic something that Omar supports, by the way. Note his reference in his May 28 posting to intentionally murdered israeli Jewish children and babies not as civilians but as "civilians' in scarequotes.

Just so people know what Omar is.

james joseph butler - 6/14/2008

Mr. Eckstein,
You have labeled me an "anti-semite", apart from the oxymoronic nature of calling someone whose sympathies obviously lie with the Semitic Palestinians an anti-semite, I would happy to hear a word or sentence that I've written in the previous post or any others that could lead one to think that I'm prejudiced against Jews.

art eckstein - 6/14/2008

Neve Gordon manages to leave out the genocidal Palestinian attacks on Jews that began after they refused the Camp David and Taba agreements in 2001.

Gordon himself abuses students in his classroom who disagree with him. That's on record, it happened at the University of Michigan, and the record is horrible.

I don't expect to convince the anti-semites Baker and Butler, nor am I entering into a conversation with them; it's been useless. I'm merely pointing out certain facts to other readers.

james joseph butler - 6/14/2008

Defense Minister Dayan also stated in a cabinet meeting that he would like to " treat them like dogs, then we'll see how they like it.", regarding Palestinians in the occupied land.
Israel, as Olmert told the U.S. Congress, has always considered all of Palestine-Judea/Samaria their land. The Torah told him so. Of course this statement was applauded after he finished the sentence by adding that he and his nation were a generous people and he had reconciled himself to the fact that Israel would only rule 83% of the former Palestine. And America asked, is $30 billion of weaponary enough to keep you #1 in the nabe, to keep Democracy safe?
When Kit Carson cut down the Navajo peach trees he knew what he was doing, he was bringing a people to its knees. Israel and America do this Palestinians everyday.

omar ibrahim baker - 6/14/2008

Gordon's post in as much as it high lights only some of Israel's every day practices in the occupied Palestinian territories fails to draw the inevitable and obvious objective behind them.

AS earlier and frequently pointed out: Israeli colonialism is unique in that it does NOT only aim at controlling and exploiting a certain land, as with "classical" colonialism, but aims equally at depopulating that land through ethnic cleansing and when that fails to achieve all its objectives through reducing the life of the remaining colonized a virtual hell via, among other methods, reducing their means of sustenance and livelihood!

Gordon however also failed to cite two other outstanding policies and practices , definitely known to him, that are in the same vein as the ones he enumerated:

1- The progressive robbing of Arab lands particularly the arable among it.
This has been undertaken through the building and expansion of Settlements, for so called "public use" and for the “security” around the Settlements , through denial of building permits and , the major effort, through the Wall.
It is estimated that some 35% of Palestinian land occupied in 1967 was robbed since 1967; 90% of which is arable!

2-Collective punishment in the demolition of the houses/homes in which dwell the families of resistants or suspects; thus depriving the whole family, on average 6-7 persons, of a "home" for the actual or alleged acts of only one of its members!

Israel, as long as it lives, is a very dark stain on its supporters, mainly the Jews ,and will, after its eventual demise , be remembered, in human annals, as a unique racist colonialist venture.