Glenn Greenwald doubles down on claim that pro-Israel factions nixed Massad essay (Updated)

See update below.

As we reported yesterday, Glenn Greenwald Tweeted his outrage after Al Jazeera recently published and then deleted an appallingly antisemitic essay by Joseph Massad – titled, ‘Last of the Semites’ – which you can read here. Massad’s nearly 4000 word attack on Jews and the Jewish state explicitly advanced the argument that there is an “ideological similitude” between Zionism and Nazism and, in sum, was difficult to distinguish from the bile found on extremist websites.

Greenwald expressed his outrage over the removal of Massad’s pseudo intellectual assault against Jews, thusly:

As we noted, the identity of Greenwald’s “usual suspects” wasn’t difficult to determine, as he linked to a predictable take on the Massad row by Ali Abunimah at Electronic Intifada which accused the Qatari-based media group of caving in to “Zionists extremists” – naming the Jewish trio of  Jeffrey Goldberg, John Podhoretz and Rahm Emmanuel.

Though Greenwald refused to answer our query, during a Twitter exchange, asking him to clarify his allegation against “the usual suspects”, we didn’t have to wait long to receive an answer, as the ‘Comment is Free’ columnist addressed the topic in his latest post titled ‘Al Jazeera deletes its own controversial op-ed, then refuses to comment.

The fact that Greenwald, per the title, was indeed unable to get a clear answer from Al Jazeera on why they removed Massad’s essay didn’t represent a significant obstacle in his determination to reach a ‘conclusion’ about the media group’s decision.  After addressing the “controversial” nature of Massad’s Zionism-Nazi allegations – writing: “I’m not expressing any views here on the merit of Massad’s arguments because that’s irrelevant to the issue” – he then pivoted to the question of who was to blame for the stifling of Joseph Massad. 

Greenwald writes the following:

I spent much of the weekend emailing various Al Jazeera officials for comment, to no avail. Everyone either ignored my multiple inquires or said they were barred from commenting and referred me to the head of the outlet’s PR department, who never responded.’

Greenwald, further into his post, begins to reveal “information” he was able to receive from unnamed ‘sources’:

Al Jazeera’s deletion of this Op-Ed, and especially its refusal to provide any explanation for what happened here, is significant beyond just this one episode. Several people who work for the outlet, none of whom was willing to speak for attribution due to fear of retaliation by the network’s officials, say that Al Jazeera officials have become much more cautious and fearful ever since they purchased Current TV last December for $500 million and prepared to enter the US television market under the brand name “Al Jazeera America”

Greenwald then expands on the cause of the Arab news outlet’s new-found caution.

In particular, these sources say, the primary impetus for the removal of the Op-Ed came from Ehab al-Shihabi, who was recently named to head the American TV network. They say that he is petrified that angering “pro-Israel” factions in the US will bolster the perception of Al Jazeera as both anti-American and anti-Israel, thus dooming the network with both corporate advertisers and cable carriers and render it radioactive among mainstream politicians. Al-Shihabi, they say, went to the network’s top executive in Doha, Director-General Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani, and demanded the removal of the Massad Op-Ed.

The question is whether this can continue now that Al Jazeera is seeking to establish a serious TV presence in the US. The Qatari regime is a close American ally, hosting several vital US military assets used to wage the war in Iraq. But the regime has come under criticism from US officials and “pro-Israel” commentators for its support of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It is hard to see how a US television network owned by the regime in Qatar will regularly broadcast journalism that is truly adversarial to its close ally, the US government, or air commentary that offends influential political factions in the US.

As we’ve documented continually, this particular accusation is par for the course for Greenwald, who has shown himself to be seemingly obsessed with the alleged power of “influential” “pro-Israel factions” in the US.

Here are a few examples from his former blog at Salon:

So absolute has the Israel-centric stranglehold on American policy been that the US Government has made it illegal to broadcast Hezbollah television stations…”

Not even our Constitution’s First Amendment has been a match for the endless exploitation of American policy, law and resources [by the Israel lobby] to target and punish Israel’s enemies.”

“Meanwhile, one of the many Israel-Firsters in the U.S. Congress — Rep. Anthony Weiner, last seen lambasting President Obama for daring to publicly mention a difference between the U.S. and Israel — today not only defended Israel’s attack (obviously) but also, revealingly,pronounced:  ”Even if we are the only country on earth that sees the facts here, the United States should stand up for Israel.”  In other words:  who cares how isolated it makes us or what harm we suffer?”

It is simply true that there are large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups which are agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is the case because those groups are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests…”

And, it is simply true that the ideological territory which Glenn Greenwald claims routinely endorses tropes about the injurious influence of Jewish power which share a long and toxic antisemitic pedigree. 

UPDATE: This evening Al Jazeera reposted the Massad piece, which prompted Greenwald to Tweet the following:

Al Jazeera editors explained their decision to republish Massad’s hateful screed thusly:

After publication, many questions arose about the article’s content. In addition, the article was deemed to be similar in argument to Massad’s previous column, ” Zionism, anti-Semitism and colonialism“, published on these pages in December.

We should have handled this better, and we have learned lessons that will enable us to maintain the highest standards of journalistic integrity.

Our guiding principle has always been “the opinion and other opinion”. Our pages have always been – and will always be – open to the most thought-provoking thinkers and writers from across the globe.

Al Jazeera does not submit to pressure regardless of circumstance, and our history is full of examples where we were faced with extremely tough choices but never gave in. This is the secret to our success.

Evidently, those “influential” “pro-Israel factions” aren’t so influential after all!

An ugly disgusting rant: Joseph Massad and Glenn Greenwald attack ‘the usual Jewish suspects’

Shortly after Julie Burchill’s January commentary, titled ‘Transsexuals should cut it out‘, at the Observer was completely removed after thousands of readers complained that her piece was bigoted towards transsexuals, the Observer’s decision was defended by their readers’ editor,  Stephen Pritchard.  

Pritchard called the decision a rational one, based on his contention that Burchill’s essay was “needlessly offensive” and “gratuitously insulting”.

Though some in the media were highly critical of the decision by the Observer (a Guardian sister publication) to pull Burchill’s piece, Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian’s putative defender of free speech, was mostly silent on the Burchill Affair.  Indeed, his Tweet, on Jan 13, shortly after Burchill’s piece was published should give some indication as to why.

‘An ugly disgusting rant’ would certainly be one way to characterize Joseph Massad’s despicable essay in Al Jazeera on May 14, which argued the following:

  • Zionism not only equals racism, but the ideology itself is antisemitic.
  • Zionists cooperated and collaborated with the Nazis during the 30s and 40s.
  • Zionism should be understood as the fulfillment of the Nazis’ dream, and that the there is a strong “ideological similitude” between the two movements.

As Petra Marquardt-Bigman has argued, the writings of Massad (who has contributed to Comment is Free‘ and Electronic Intifada) can easily be confused with material found on extremist racist websites.

There is one exception to this paradigm, however. Massad is of Palestinian origin, so his otherwise boilerplate extreme right narrative about Israel and Jews is compromised a bit by these howlers:

  • Unlike Zionists, who, by virtue of their Zionism, are antisemitic, “Palestinians have remained unconvinced and steadfast in their resistance to anti-Semitism“.
  • Unlike ‘Zionist anti-Semites’, “the Palestinian people have mounted a major struggle against…anti-Semitic incitement”.

Whilst there were no Tweets by Greenwald expressing outrage over Massad’s pseudo intellectual racist assault against Jews, the decision by Al Jazeera to remove the Massad article from their site sent Greenwald into a fury:

In case there is any doubt who Greenwald is referring to by “the usual suspects“, in the Tweet he links to a piece criticizing AJ’s decision (and defending Massad) by Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada – whose support for Massad is not surprising as he advanced the Zionism = Nazism narrative in a Tweet in 2010 – which accused Al Jazeera of caving in to “Zionists extremist” Jews, such as Jeffrey Goldberg, John Podhoretz and Rahm Emmanuel.

It really takes a mind occupied by the most crude antisemitic stereotypes about the danger of Jewish power to conjure a scenario by which a Qatari based pro-Sunni Islamist media group was strong-armed by a small gang of powerful Jews into censoring an otherwise meritorious essay.   

Greenwald is a Jew by birth, and though we don’t possess some sort of piercing mentalism which would allow us to see the bigotry which may lurk in his soul, it should be clear to anyone who has seriously studied the “liberal” Guardian’ commentator that his moral sensibilities are – at the very least – compromised by a callous indifference to even the most explicit and malicious expressions of Jew hatred. 

A Guardian Left extremist mourns Israel’s continued existence

 A guest post by AKUS

massad

Joseph Massad

If we could vote on it, I suspect that his Nov. 30 essay at CiF, The UN vote to recognise Palestine legitimises a racist status quo, deconstructed by Adam Levick at The Guardian approved malice of Joseph Massad, would beat out articles by such worthy contenders as Ben White, Chris McGreal, and Hamas spokesmen for first place in its sheer outpouring of racist hatred towards those who he terms “colonists” – Jews who settled in Israel.

Massad managed a truly imaginative job of rewriting history in one column. According to Massad, Arab armies did not invade the new Jewish state to tear it apart at birth – they “intervened to stop the expulsion” of Palestinians.

Not for him are the records of Jewish mayors begging Arabs to stay, or Arab leaders urging Arabs to move aside to better enable the slaughter of the Jews, the census results recording the massive influx of Arabs from other countries to partake of the growing economy of the Jewish towns and farms of the Mandate.  It’s all very simple and clear in his mind. Indigenous Arabs were expelled by colonist Jews, to become 6 million refugees (or even 12 million, later in his article).

In line with his teachings that Zionists are now the true anti-Semites, and Arabs their “victims”, Massad even managed to work in a comparison of “Palestinian refugees” to those who perished in the Holocaust – now there are “six million other [Palestinian] refugees”, a marvelously convenient number echoing the Holocaust that presumably includes every “refugee” living comfortably and teaching at American Universities, like Jordanian-born Massad himself.

Nevertheless, if there is one group of people Massad loathes more than the Jewish “colonists” in Israel, it is what he terms the “collaborationist Palestinian Authority”. As the vitriol drips down the screen, it seems that he hates them even more than Hamas does. Ismail Haniyah might, for the sake of political expediency, shake the hand of Abbas, even kiss him on both cheeks, but one feels that Massad would never be trapped into such a glaring surrender of his principles.

And therein lies a strange kernel of truth that this excoriator of Zion reveals about the recent UN vote on “Palestine”. Like Balaam, he came to the Guardian to curse Israel and in the end, blesses her and curses the PA.

Massad writes:

“Yesterday, the general assembly voted to admit Palestine as a state with observer status. Despite assurances to the contrary, the new state is likely to undermine the status of the PLO at the UN. Whereas the PLO represented all Palestinians, the PA only represents West Bankers. This recognition has diminished the Palestinian state geographically from 43% of historic Palestine granted by the partition plan to less than 18% of it (possibly 10%, if we factor annexations, settlements, military areas, etc), and has reduced Palestinians from 12 million people to 2.4 million West Bankers, 40% of whom are refugees.

The vote is essentially an update of the partition plan of 1947, whereby the UN now grants Jewish colonists and their descendants 80-90% of Palestine, leaving the rest to the native inhabitants, and it risks abrogating the refugees’ right of return.” [emphasis added]

Leave aside the false arithmetic that ignores the existence of Jordan as part of the former mandate territory of Palestine, thus inflating the  percentage of land grabbed by those greedy colonists, the miraculous growth in one article from six million to 12 million Palestinian (see next excerpt), and observe how he mourns what he sees as the monumental blundering away of his version of what  “Palestine” should be. The PA has created “West Bankers” rather than “Palestinians” — and, worse yet, implicitly endorsed the acceptance of the existence of that racist state of Israel and reaffirmation of by the UN of the 1947 partition plan!!

Massad’s racist summation of his article was a masterful example of Hamas reasoning and a revelation of the desire to take over the thriving, prosperous state of Israel rather than have two non-viable statelets competing for the title of “Palestine” (I leave out some of the most racially charged parts of his concluding diatribe):

“By recognising a diminished Palestinian state, the vote effectively abandons the UN understanding of the “Jewish state” as one that has no right to discriminate against or ethnically cleanse non-Jews….  The Palestinians, however, whose majority is not represented by the PA, will no more heed this new partition plan than they did the last one and will continue to resist Israeli colonialism until it comes to an end and until Israel becomes a state for all its citizens with equal rights to all regardless of national, religious, or ethnic background”.

But let us focus on the positive. This hatemonger concludes that:

  1. The UN (again) recognizes Israel’s right to exist (which every country has, but thanks anyway)
  2. Recognizes that the “West Bankers” can only lay claim to some part of the West Bank and denies them (and presumably Hamas and this spokesman) the “right of return” and the “right” to take over Israel, even as he still desperately clings to the delusion of a “one state solution” and believes he speaks for those heedless Palestinians not represented by the PA.
  3. Appears to think that the “West Bankers” will only get a statelet on the West Bank and not some geographically bizarre confederation with Gaza (perhaps he needs to consider the “Jordanian option?)

If Massad is to be believed, perhaps this second November 29th was as good a day for Israel in the General Assembly as the one 65 years ago!!

The Guardian approved malice of Joseph Massad

Even by ‘Comment is Free’ standards, the anti-Zionist diatribe published by Joseph Massad, a Middle East Studies professor at Columbia University, on Nov. 30 is remarkable.

Massad’s objective, in ‘The UN vote to recognize Palestine legitimises the status quo‘, was clearly not to advocate for the Palestinians, nor even to merely question the utility of the UN’s decision to grant the Palestinians non-member observer status but, rather, to undermine Israel legitimacy and frame the state as morally beyond the pale.

Certainly, what Massad has written for ‘Comment is Free’ is not at all surprising given his background.

As CAMERA has observed, Massad has characterized Palestinians seeking to destroy Israel benignly as pursuing (ala Seumas Milne) “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to resist,” whereas he’s cast Israel as a “racist settler colony” which acts with “unceasing brutality and sadism”.

CAMERA cited, as one example of Massad’s extremism, a passage in Cairo’s weekly Al-Ahram paper, in which Massad criticized a European philosopher (CiF contributor, Slavoj Zizek) who, despite being a severe critic of Israel, supports its right to exist.  

Massad wrote the following:

“What concerns [Slavoj Zizek] most is not the foundational racism of Zionism and its concrete offspring, a racist Jewish state, nor the racist curricula of Israeli Jewish schools, the racist Israeli Jewish media representations of Palestinians, the racist declarations of Israeli Jewish leaders on the right and on the left, or the Jewish supremacist rights and privileges guiding Zionism and Israeli state laws and policies” [emphasis added]

‘Comment is Free’ editors have granted space to Hamas members on several occasions, so it is not surprising that they published a piece by an ideological extremist who has characterized Jews as “supremacists”, a term popularized by Gilad Atzmon and David Duke.  Nonetheless, the sheer volume of lies and the degree of malice in his CiF polemic are both staggering.

Massad’s rhetorical malevolence begins in the first paragraph, writing thus:

“On 29 November 1947, the UN general assembly voted to partition Palestine between native Palestinians and overwhelmingly European Jewish colonists. The partition plan granted the colonists (one-third of the population) 57% of the land, and granted the native inhabitants (two-thirds of the population) 43%.”

The word “colonists”, which Massad employs repeatedly throughout the essay, to characterize Israeli Jews past and present represents a popular lie parroted by those who wish to delegitimize Jews’ presence in Israel.  

However, as “colonists” would refer to interlopers and outsiders – those who have no connection to the land and have forcefully conquered its indigenous population – the word simply does not apply to Jews in Israel.

Jews are the only people for whom the land of Israel was their ancient homeland, dating back to 1300 BCE, and “by 1000 BCE Jews ruled themselves for over 400 years, more than a thousand years before Islam was established.” Even after exile, Jews maintained a continuous presence in the land throughout Roman, Christian, Ottoman and British occupation, with Jewish majorities in several towns. By the ninth century there were Jewish communities in Tiberias, by the eleventh century in Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea, by the thirteenth century in Safed and by the mid-nineteenth century there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem.

The Jews’ connection to the land of Israel (and their legal right to settle anywhere in Western ‘Palestine’) was codified by the ‘Mandate for Palestine‘, the League of Nations document approved unanimously in 1922, and never abrogated.  The Mandate recognized the “historic connection of the Jewish people to Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

Not only has there has never been a Palestinian state, but the term “native Palestinians” is a misnomer, as there was never any distinct Palestinian identity until the later half of the 20th century.  Most Arabs who lived within the boundaries of historic Palestine were considered to be part of greater Syria.  

Further, hundreds of thousands of Arabs who were living in ‘Palestine’ by 1947 had in fact emigrated from other Arab countries and so, by definition, were not “native Palestinians” even in the narrow sense of the term.

As Dore Gold observed:

“During the years that the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel was restored, a huge Arab population influx transpired as Arab immigrants sought to take advantage of higher wages and economic opportunities that resulted from Jewish settlement in the land. President Roosevelt concluded in 1939 that “Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during the whole period.””

Additionally, an estimated “25 percent to 37 percent of immigrants to pre-state Israel were Arabs, not Jews.” Between 1922 and 1946, roughly 100,000 Arabs entered the country from neighboring Arab lands.  

The question, then, of who was an “authentic” Palestinian in 1947 – even if we were to bestow political significance to such a loaded term – is not one easily answered.    

Massad’s CiF piece continues:

“On 30 November, the colonists embarked on the military conquest of Palestine, expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.”

In fact, something closer to the opposite is true.

The Arabs responded to the UN vote by engaging in organized violence against Jews.

Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee’s spokesman, told the UN prior to the partition vote the Arabs would “drench the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood” and they indeed attempted to follow through on that promise.

As Martin Gilbert, in his book, ‘Israel: A history’, wrote (page 155):

“From the moment of the UN vote, Arab terrorists and armed bandits attacked Jewish men, women and children all over the country, killing 80 Jews in 12 days following the vote. looting Jewish shops and attacking Jewish civilian buses on all the highways”.

[On the day after the UN vote] a bus taking Jewish civilians from Netanya to Jerusalem was attacked by three Arabs with a machine gun and grenades. Five Jews were killed.

This attack on the bus came to be the beginning of the war [of Independence] that would take 6,000 lives”

Moreover, the Arab war against Jews preceded the 1947 UN vote on partition. Major eruptions of Arab violence directed against Jews took place in the late 1920s (including the Hebron and Safed massacres of 1929) and mid 1930s, but systemic violence began as early as 1920.

As CAMERA explained:

“The primary agitator behind these attacks was Haj Amin al Husseini, who marshalled Arab discontent over Jewish immigration into violent riots.

In 1929, Husseini and his associates fomented a violent jihad as they called upon Muslims to “defend” their holy places from the Jews. As a result, pogroms were carried out across Palestine. Arab villagers sympathetic to Jews were often targets of murderous attacks by their Arab brethren as well. British forces were sharply criticized for not policing the territory adequately, for sympathizing with the Arabs, and for standing by and allowing havoc to be wreaked upon Jewish communities in Palestine.”

Also, Arab terrorism against Jews (for five and half months from November until May when Israel declared independence) wasn’t limited to the Jews of ‘Palestine’, as Martin Gilbert further explained:

“For Arabs outside Palestine, a similar wave of anti-Jewish hatred led to violence against Jews in almost every Arab city.”

Hundreds of Jews were killed by mobs - populations which were incited to violence by Arab political and religious leaders - in Arab cities across the Middle East. Jewish shops were looted, and synagogues attacked.

Over the next 20 or so years, more than 800,000 Jews would be forcibly expelled from Arab lands where their families had lived for centuries

Massad’s piece continues:

“They declared their state on 14 May 1948.

Palestinians rejected the plan as it dispossessed them of their lands.

Arab armies intervened to stop the expulsion but failed and hundreds of thousands more Palestinians were expelled. The colonists conquered the territory assigned to them by the partition plan plus half the territory assigned to the Palestinians.” [emphasis added]

Massad’s claims are completely ahistorical. Arab armies didn’t “intervene to the stop the expulsion” of Arabs, as Arabs within Israel’s new boundaries were not being threatened with expulsion.  

The Arabs “intervened” to expel all of the Jews and initiated the violence.

On February 16, 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported the following to the Security Council:

“Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.”

In fact, the Arabs didn’t deny they began the war to eliminate the nascent Jewish state. As Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:

“The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight”

Again, Massad:

“The partition plan stipulated…insisted that the two states could not expel or discriminate against their minorities. For the UN, the “Jewish state” meant a state that champions Jewish nationalism without discriminating against non-Jews, and that its definition of Jewish and Arab states did not allow ethnic cleansing, which is what the Jewish colonists embarked upon immediately. Since then, the colonists and their descendants insist that for them the “Jewish state” is able to discriminate by law and policy against non-Jews for example, through ethnic cleansing.” [emphasis added]

Of all the unserious charges leveled against Israel, perhaps the most egregious one involves the charge of “ethnic cleansing”.

First, regarding the refugees as a result of the War of Independence, Mitch Bard wrote the following:

“The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out-of-the-way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.”

However, even more interestingly, the Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote the following in his 1955 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.”

And, as CAMERA notedSyria’s Prime Minister in 1948-49 acknowledged Arab responsibility for the original refugee crisis in his memoirs, writing thus:

“Since 1948, we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return” (The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, p. 386-7).

Further, subsequent charges that Israel, post 1949, engaged in “ethnic cleansing” are contradicted by population statistics in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem.

  • In Gaza, the Arab population increased from 82,500 in 1950 to roughly 1.5 million today.
  • In the West Bank, the Arab population increased from 462,000 in 1950 to more than 2.4 million today.
  • In Jerusalem, the Arab population increased from roughly 65,000 in 1948 to over 285,000 today.

So, the Arab population has increased (in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem) from 1948 till today by more than six fold.

Meanwhile, the Jewish population in the Arab world has decreased by over 100 fold – from over 850,000 in 1948 to, at most, 7,500 today.

Based on any criteria, it has been Jews, not Arabs, who have been ethnically cleansed.

Massad continues:

“The UN has affirmed the right of the refugees to return to their homes and be compensated for their losses, which Israel refuses.”

First, the UN resolution 242 only alludes to the Palestinian refugees issue in the second clause of the second article, which calls for “a just settlement of the refugee problem.” UN Resolution 194 refers to “refugees”, not just Palestinian refugees.  So, it could also be applied to the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Moreover, nowhere in 242 and 194 are descendants of the original 1948 refugees mentioned.

As Ben Dror Yamini has argued about the broader issue of the refugees and UN:

“The UN has two bodies which deal with refugees. The High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which deals with all the world’s refugees and UNRWA, which deals only with those who became Palestinians. The Commissioner has taken care of fifty million people. They received initial help and they are not refugees. UNRWA, in contrast, began with 711 thousand and magically turned them into more than five million. The commission rehabilitates refugees. UNRWA nurtures, clones and perpetuates the refugee problem.’

Interestingly, a former UNRWA official, Sir Alexander Galloway, wrote the following all the way back in 1952:

“The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

Moreover, the fact that millions of Palestinian Arabs (mostly descendants two or three generations removed from the original refugees) are still living in towns administered by UNRWA in Arab states, and haven’t been granted full citizenship rights, is not a commentary on Israel but, rather, on the cynicism of those perpetuating the refugee “crisis”.

Massad:

“After Israel’s conquest of the remaining 22% of Palestine in 1967 and its establishment of more colonies in the conquered territories, more resolutions were passed condemning Israeli violations of international law.”

The “conquest” Massad refers was a defensive war (Six Day War) which was forced upon Israel in 1967 by Arab leaders who were openly threatening the Jewish state with destruction.

Further, Massad’s mention of “22% of Palestine” represents another fiction, as it suggests a percentage of what was all of pre-state Mandatory Palestine – which never existed as an independent Arab state.  After the 1948-49 War, Israel was in control of 78% of Mandatory Palestine. The remaining 22% (West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and Gaza) was split between Jordan and Egypt .

Again, an independent Palestine was never created.  So, if a Palestinian state is eventually established on most of the West Bank it will be, by definition, 100% more sovereign territory than Palestinians ever previously could claim under Arab or Jewish rule.  “Palestine” never existed, so the words “22% of Palestine” represent a rhetorical deception. 

Massad continues:

“The vote [by the UN General Assembly to grant Palestine observer status] is essentially an update of the partition plan of 1947, whereby the UN now grants Jewish colonists and their descendants 80-90% of Palestine, leaving the rest to the native inhabitants, and it risks abrogating the refugees’ right of return.

A small minority native to the West Bank (about 1.3 million people), for whom the PA claims to speak, will gain UN status as a state under occupation, while the Palestinian refugees in the West Bank (1 million people), along with six million other refugees, risk losing their right of return.

By recognising a diminished Palestinian state, the vote effectively abandons the UN understanding of the “Jewish state” as one that has no right to discriminate against or ethnically cleanse non-Jews. The new arrangement confers the blessing of this international forum on the Israeli understanding of what a “Jewish state” entails– namely, the actually existing legal discrimination and ethnic cleansing practised by Israel –as acceptable.”

In other words, for Massad, any outcome which denies the unlimited “right of return” to Palestinians – the alleged right of millions of Palestinian Arabs who never set foot on Israeli soil, and whose only claim rests on the fact that many of their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents may have once lived there – is unworthy of consideration.

Any solution which leaves the Jewish state standing represents, for Massad, a grave offense to social justice.

Massad concludes, thus:

“That this occurred on 29 November, the date of the partition plan, reiterates this date as one of continuing defeats for the Palestinians who continue to suffer from Israel’s colonial laws, and repeats UN guilt in denying Palestinians their rights not to suffer dispossession and racism. The Palestinians, however, whose majority is not represented by the PA, will no more heed this new partition plan than they did the last one and will continue to resist Israeli colonialism until it comes to an end and until Israel becomes a state for all its citizens with equal rights to all regardless of national, religious, or ethnic background.”

Massad makes one thing clear: he is among the many rejectionists gracing the pages of ‘Comment is Free’ who dismiss, as a craven surrender to the Palestinian cause, any diplomatic solution, any compromise with the Jews.

To put Massad’s solution more succinctly:

“…initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the …Resistance Movement.

Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility…”

That last quote was excerpted from Hamas’s charter.

It’s truly getting harder and harder to distinguish between ‘Comment is Free’ and the Islamic Resistance Movement.