Ben Gerstein now uses uncritically – in his mea-maxima-culpa apology — the term “Palestinian people.” Does he have any idea where the term comes from? After the Six-Day War, when the Arabs realized that they would not be able to conquer Israel militarily, they moved instead to a propaganda effort to persuade the world that the conflict did not pit twenty-two Arab states or – still more lopsided – fifty-seven Islamic states, against tiny Israel but, rather, re-presented it as a conflict between “two tiny peoples, each struggling for a homeland.” Overnight the “Palestinian people” came into existence, and few questioned their invention. No one could offer a single distinguishing feature of the “Palestinian people” — but then no one was asked. The “Palestinians” possess neither a distinct religion, nor language, nor culture; they are, in fact, indistinguishable from the Arabs in the same neighborhood (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon). It didn’t matter. Few in the West thought to think through this matter of an invented “Palestinian people.”
The “Palestinian” leader of the terrorist group As Sa’iqa, Zuheir Mohsen, explained in a moment of candor the origin of the “Palestinian people”:
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”
Gerstein should ask himself why the phrase “Palestinian people” was not used – not once — by any of the Arab leaders, or Arab diplomats at the U.N., either during the 1948-49 conflict, or since, right up to the Six-Day War. No “Palestinian people” were mentioned during the Sinai Campaign of 1956, nor for the next eleven years, right up to and including Nasser’s speeches to huge hysterical Cairene crowds in May 1967, when he promised to annihilate Israel. But not a word by Nasser, or any other Arab leader, was uttered about the “Palestinian people.”
Gerstein was right in 2017 when he asked a simple and obvious question: do those people who are now called the “Palestinians” deserve a state “at this time”? He never said that the “Palestinians” should never have a state, only that they should not have one as long as they engaged in unacceptable and murderous behavior. He might have asked, further, what criteria should be used to determine which peoples are most worthy of statehood. Surely an easily distinguished people, with a millennium or two of history – like the Kurds and the Berbers – who have no state of their own, and are variously mistreated in the states in which they now live as minorities, should have their claims to autonomy or statehood given pride of place by the advanced Western world.
He should also ask himself if the fact that there are already twenty-two Arab states, making the Arabs the most richly-endowed of all peoples in the number of states they possess, makes the demand for a twenty-third Arab state more or – as most fair-minded people would agree – less compelling. And that is especially the case if the main reason for that 23rd Arab state would be to deprive the single Jewish state of the “secure and recognizable borders” it was promised under U.N. Resolution 242. The establishment of such a state is not an end in itself but a means to an end: reducing Israel to a size that will permit another violent assault on the Jewish state. Gerstein should be reminded , too, that already, in 1921, fully 77% of the territory that had originally been intended for the future Jewish state – all of Palestine east of the Jordan — was instead allocated by the British to what then became the Emirate of Transjordan, created as a consolation prize for the Hashemite Abdullah, who had wanted to become the King of Syria.
In his latest appearance, Gerstein was weak when he ought to have been strong, craven when he ought to have been assertive. He had nothing to apologize for, and he ought to have stood firm against those maligning him. Now he has foolishly accepted the unacceptable premises of the enemies of Israel in the student government, and in accusing himself of wrongdoing, he comes across for all the world just like those defendants in the Soviet show trials of the 1930s, or the Chinese who accused themselves of every kind of thought crime during the Cultural Revolution. It has been a painful performance. He has won over no one, and betrayed the truth.
“In this video as well as an op-ed, I [Gerstein] made statements that erase the history of the Palestinian people. I made racist statements, including the denial of the right to self-determination, that were ignorant of Palestinians’ struggle under occupation,” he wrote. “I am sorry beyond words—both for my actions as well as not coming forward with the video sooner and seeking remedy for it. I accept total and complete responsibility for the harmfulness of my language, the offensiveness of my words and the active role I played in the silencing of Palestinian voices.”
He has nothing to apologize for, especially in such a craven manner, which is what makes his apology even worse. He did not make “racist statements.” He did not deny the “right of self-determination,” but merely questioned whether, at that point, given their behavior, the Palestinians deserved it. He claims he was “ignorant of Palestinians’ struggle under occupation.”
“I have grown considerably since I made those statements, and the repulsive views I expressed in the video no longer reflect my current understanding,” he continued. “I am devastated to see them reappear and be defended today. I know an apology is never enough, and I am complicit in the oppression of Palestinians through my past actions.”
No, he did not make any statements that “erase the history of the Palestinian people.” There is precious little history to erase: as a propagandistic fiction, the Palestinians came into existence only after the Arab defeat in the Six-Day War. Gerstein also claims he made “racist statements.” He did not, and he should never have accused himself of having done so. We know that neither the “Palestinians” nor “Muslims” are a race, and that the word “racist” is simply employed – no proof needed — to blacken the name of anyone deemed insufficiently supportive of the “Palestinian” cause. The same is true with the idiotic, and slanderous charge of “islamophobia” – a word used to misdescribe the most sober and fact-based islamocriticism.
Gerstein, like the defendants in the Soviet show trials, cannot say enough bad things about himself. He made “racist statements” including “the denial of self-determination.” He was guilty of “repulsive views” that he is “devastated to see reappear” today. He knows that he is “complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians.” Complicit in their “oppression” because he dared to suggest, in a 10-minute interview he gave three years ago as a high school student, that perhaps “the Palestinians were not the ideal candidates for statehood”? Goodness. He simply raised the issue, as any fair-minded person would, about whether the behavior of the Palestinians – their use of terrorism, their encouragement of antisemitism, their rejection of peace deals – made them less deserving, at this particular time, of a state. Isn’t that a legitimate matter to raise?
Gerstein went on to say that before arriving at the University of Michigan, he had only been exposed to pro-Israel viewpoints, but was “committed” to “learning new perspectives and being empathetic to the Palestinian community.”
Gerstein had “only been exposed to pro-Israel viewpoints” before coming to the university? Hasn’t he had access to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe? Hasn’t he watched PBS, CNN, MSNBC, the BBC? The American media is full of anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian views – it’s hard to believe Gerstein when he says he was “only exposed to pro-Israel viewpoints,” given what mainstream media churns out every day. This claim makes no sense, except as part of his series of mea-maxima-culpas – “I didn’t know enough, I didn’t realize, I’m so sorry. And I’ll make sure I learn ‘new perspectives’ (anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian) and feel more empathy for the Palestinian community.” What a shameful performance. He should have stuck by his guns – he had things right the first time.
Rebel of Oz says
What difference does it make how you call the native Arab population of the area comprised of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, whether you call them Arabs or Palestinians. They are still native to the area and have been forced to run away through acts of terror by Zionist terrorist groups and ever since refused their UN guaranteed right of return. Those who live in Israel, are treated as forth-class citizens, after the Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Black Jews citizens. You can argue over labels all day long, but that doesn’t change anything about the injustices committed by the Zionists towards the native population.
mgoldberg says
false on every account. The arabs were not forced to run away thru acts of terror by ‘Zionist terror groups’ but by arab armies commands to leave so the tiny jewish enclave could be wiped away. They were even asked to stay and the reality is that they were not thrown out even after the wars of annihilation against Israel that Israel won. The arabs demand a jew free state then, and now. That is their demand, that has been the tyranny of Islam. The arabs are treated rather too well in Israel, and they sit in government, in the army, they sit in all the areas that they can choose to enter. Unlike jews who are excluded from arab lands except as submitted inferiors. You can pretend your disdain of labels has meaning but you have merely created the false oppressed oppressor meme with the arabs as poor 4th class citizens which they clearly and historically have not been. The injustices by arabs there and every arab land are quite evident to see, note, record and witness.
b.a. freeman says
how about listing some of those “injustices,” Rebel?
Rebel of Oz says
1. The Palestinian refugees living outside of the state of Israel are refused their guarantee human right of return.
2. It is illegal for a Jewish citizen to sell land to an Arab citizen of Israel. That’s blatantly racist discrimination.
There are thousands of other ways how the Arabs are discriminated against on racist grounds in all aspects of Israeli society. I can’t be bothered to list them all.
Tony Naim says
Do You mean to
Imply that Arab states provide exemplary models of governance based on justice and human rights?
Or that Christians and Jews enjoy equal rights to Muslims in arab states? Like Muslims are entitled to in the West.
Arabs treat Christian and Jews as Dhimmis!!!!!!!!
A savage ideology of discrimination under Sharia.
gravenimage says
What absolute hogwash from “Rebel of Oz”. I would suggest he read Robert Spencer’s fine “The Palestinian Solution”, but I very much doubt he is an honest actor here.
Tony Naim says
Before 1948, Jews bought their lands with their own money using legal transactions under standard trade practices within the Ottoman Empire, then under British mandate. No one gave them anything for free.
In 1948 , there were no refugees.
With the British leaving, the U.N. gave each group , Arabs and Jews , the right to govern themselves. An idea so alien and repulsive to Islamic Sharia: how can Jews be considered equal to Muslims with equal political rights? They are Dhimmis:THAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.
Thus came war, launched by Muslims against Jews, followed by refugees.
Refugees from both sides. As many Arabs were forced to leave The newly nascent Israel , as Jews were forced to leave Muslim countries in return, for fear of being murdered=Sephardic Jews.
Doesn’t The injustices committed by Islamic populations across the Middle East on the native Christian and Jewish populations of Arab countries stimulate your selectively sensitive one sided conscience?
Today, The Islamic Shi’a regime of Iran continues according to the same tradition, with its militias in Iraq , Syria and Lebanon: killing Jews. In their path, they also kill Sunnis right and left!!!!
In Lebanon alone, one million Christians were forced out of their lands.
The Islamic practice of Dhimmitude is no different than apartheid, It must be abolished. It will be, by hook or by crook, Nothing else will work.
Rebel of Oz says
Nobody said that the land purchases by Jews from Arab owners were illegal. It never was. My point was that Israeli laws that prohibit land purchases by Arabs from Jewish owners was one of countless examples of the blatantly racist discrimination between Jewish and Arab citizens of the state of Israel.
tgusa says
Perhaps that is in response to the Arabs already having enough land and land that refugees are pouring out of right now Oz. If you lay out a map of the middle east and then eat a cracker over it spilling a crumb the entire state of Israel will be completely obscured.
carpediadem says
Most of those lands are owned already by Jewish owners from the past and a lot of deeds-related matters need to be sorted.
But if Arabs sell land to Jews in Jordan they get the death penalty.
Do you accept that as legitimate?
carpediadem says
It is illegal for Lebanese citizens to visit Israel without government approval.
Is that Ok with you?
gravenimage says
Good post, Tony.
carpediadem says
Nope, all of that is wrong, bigoted and defamatory.
mortimer says
The first example of the term ‘Palestinian’ applied to an Arab is found in 1898:
Khalil Beidas, a Lebanese writer, novelist and prolific translator wrotes in his preface to his translation of Akim Olesnitsky’s ‘A Description of the Holy Land:
“…the people of Palestine were in need of a geography book about their country… the Palestinian peasant waits impatiently for winter to come, for the season’s rain to moisten his fossilized fields”.
It has been proposed that this represents the first instance in modern history where the term ‘Palestinian’ or ‘Filastini’ appears in Arabic. Beidas, though born of Lebanese parents promoted the idea of a separate Palestinian nationality.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_%22Palestine%22#Rashidun,_Umayyad_and_Abbasid_Caliphates_period)
b.a. freeman says
well, perhaps it is the first such instance, mortimer, but whenever i read something on wikipedia that has anything to do with politics, bulls**t leftist beliefs, or islam, i make *sure* to check other sources (avoiding googal, which trains its AI algorithm to re-direct and mis-direct certain searches). we must keep in mind that *anybody* can modify wikipedia articles, and because there are marginally more leftists than non-leftists, at least here in amrikistan, there are almost certainly a *lot* more leftist scribblers busily adding lies to articles. the first thing i do when i stumble across something on wikipedia about which i am unsure is to check the talk tab; it will often be a record of back-and-forth between leftist zealots and rational people trying to get the truth out there. and of course, there is more than wikipedia out there on the wild wild web.
James Lincoln says
Today’s university students soon find out that campus life is much easier if they “cave” to the leftist / Marxist / islamic propaganda.
They’ll also have lots and lots of totally brain-dead “friends” – and will rack up high GPAs, courtesy of their left-wing “professors”.
After all, we mustn’t say the truth – the price is too high…
gravenimage says
Ben Gerstein’s Craven Apology – When He Had It Right the First Time (Part 2)
…………………
Sickening dhimmitude. This sort of thing is all too common.
Rebel of Oz says
I can relate to any non-Muslim who is not fond of the Muslim culture and religion. The solution is simple:
1. Don’t move into a Muslim country.
2. Don’t let Muslims move to and live in your country.
It was the Zionists who moved into a pre-dominantly Muslim and Christian country. They are the invaders.
tgusa says
Jews lived there during Roman times and long before Mo Oz. Are you saying that history began after Mos death, give or take a few years, 666?
tgusa says
Even in ancient Rome, a civilization that dominated the known world long before islam it was not Roman Jews throwing Christians to the Lions. The truth is way back then Jews did what the Roman Empire dictated, or else. Christians,on the other hand, in their early days, their infancy, were always considered the greatest threat.
Some things change some things don’t.
Rebel of Oz says
Roman days’ Jews and modern Jews are not the same. Roman days’ Jews were Semites. Modern Jews are 50% Black African Jews such as the Nigerian Igbos, 45% Ashkenazi Jews, i.e. the descendants of converted Khazarian-Huns and their Germanic rape victims, 3.5% Sephardi Jews, i.e. the descendants of converted Berbers and their Andalusian rape victims, and 1.5% Semitic Oriental Jews. Only the latter have ethnic roots with the “Holy Land”, some interbreding of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews with Roman days Hebrew exiles not withstanding. As far as I’m concerned, modern Jews have as much as a legal title on Palestine as Latino or African Catholics have on Rome and Italy.
carpediadem says
That’s OK, You don’t actually count.
In the meantime let’s discuss your authenticity as an Australian.
Race, genetics, ancestors,heritage and religion, thanks.
gravenimage says
I see that the vile “Rebel of Oz” is making the Khazar claim–that Jews are not actually Jews, and so are fair game to be mass slaughtered by Muslims. As we know, this one is a favorite of Nazis–his bizarre claim that Jews were mass raping Germanic women seems to confirm this origin.
His claim about Jews (who are not Jews, of course) being mostly Nigerian Igbos is a novelty, though. Given that Nigerian Jews have just about 20 Synagogues, this is a particularly odd claim.
carpediadem says
Other way round, bub.
Medina was porig9onally Jewish.
Muhammad invaded, murderd them, took over. Now it’s Muslim.
Gaza was originally Jewish. Muslims took over, now it’s Hamas.
Muslims invaded the entire Middle East, decimating Jews and Christians.
They took over Judea and Samaria too.
Muslims invaded Egypt and Lebanon, both originally Christian.
Etc.
Get off the campaign trail, terror groupie.
gravenimage says
Note that the “Rebel of Oz” is pretending that Jews have not lived in the Levant for over 3000 years.
Will he also tell native Britons and Swedes that their lands are now “Muslim countries” as they have been invaded by Mohammedans? Likely so…
carpediadem says
Correction – Medina was originally Jewish.