Image 01 Image 03

Top Democrats’ defense of Rashida Tlaib’s Holocaust inversion and revisionism is unforgivable

Top Democrats’ defense of Rashida Tlaib’s Holocaust inversion and revisionism is unforgivable

Tlaib falsely portrayed Palestinians as the true victims of the Holocaust who suffered by providing Jews ‘safe haven’ during and after the Holocaust. Yet Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer demand an apology not from Tlaib, but from her critics.

There has been a lot of anger at Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s statement about the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, much of it has focused on her use of the term “calming feeling,” which has enabled defenders to claim the term was taken out of context. But those defenders ignore the rest of the context, which was far worse than the term “calming feeling.”

Here’s what Tlaib said (emphasis added):

“There’s always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports. And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them.”

Putting aside the “calming feeling” wording, the Tlaib statement contains two themes: First, the Palestinians are the true victims of the Holocaust because it forced the Jewish survivors on them causing loss of land, property and lives; and Two, Palestinians helped create a safe haven for the Jews at much personal and national sacrifice.

The first point, portraying Palestinians as the true victims of the Holocaust, is a historically perverse and malicious claim. Six millions Jews died, Jewish communities throughout Europe were wiped out, yet it is the Palestinians — who backed the Nazi effort — who are portrayed as the victims. It is fair to consider this an offshoot of Holocaust Inversion, the attempt to portray the Jewish victims of the Nazis as the Nazis. It’s also a historical theft, an attempt to deprive Jews of their history and to repurpose that history to attack Jews.

The second point, that Palestinians supposedly helped provide safe haven to Jews during and after the Holocaust, is a historical falsehood of immense magnitude. We explored this falsehood in our prior post, pointing out that the Arabs of the British Mandate (who did not refer to themselves at that time as Palestinians, a more recent term), boycotted, slaughtered, and discriminated against Jews throughout the time period, and did everything they could to prevent Jews from finding a safe haven. The Grand Mufti was a strong supporter of Hitler and the extermination of the Jews.

Haaretz, a left-wing Israeli publication that regularly attacks the current government, investigated Tlaib’s claim by interviewing both Palestinian and Jewish historians. The result was that these scholars agreed that Tlaib’s ‘safe haven’ narrative had no historical basis, ‘Safe Haven’? What Israeli, Palestinian Scholars Think About Rashida Tlaib’s Holocaust Comments:

Both Israeli and Palestinian scholars told Haaretz that they had great difficulty embracing any view of history in which the Palestinians played any part in providing a “safe haven” for Jewish refugees of the Holocaust.

“Rashida Tlaib is either completely ignorant of the history or is a deliberate liar,” charged Prof. Benny Morris, one of the leading scholars of British Mandatory Palestine, the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the War of Independence in 1948-1949.

Morris said Tlaib’s ancestors, meaning Palestinians, “did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Jews at Nazi hands. Rather, the opposite: The Arabs of [British Mandatory] Palestine, during the whole period — and supported by the neighboring Arab states — did all they could to prevent Jews trying to escape Nazi hands from reaching the (relatively safe) shores of Palestine.”

The anti-British and anti-Zionist revolt launched by Palestinian Arabs between 1936 and 1939 both deterred European Jews from escaping to Mandatory Palestine and motivated the British rulers to prevent more refugee Jews from entering Palestine so as not to inflame the Arabs, Morris said.

He also pointed out that the leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement, Haj Amin al-Husseini, during his exile in Berlin from 1941-1945, “called for the massacre of Jews in the Arab world on Nazi radio stations — an anti-Jewish ‘jihad’ — and helped the Nazis recruit Muslims from the Balkans for the SS and Wehrmacht.”

Palestinian historian Dr. Adel Manna, a senior research fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, expressed bewilderment when asked about Tlaib’s “safe haven” reference.

“I don’t know what she meant,” Manna said.

He said that history shows that Jewish immigration before, during and after the Holocaust represented a “colonial settler project” that was clearly leading to Palestinian displacement. Throughout the 1930s and ’40s, Manna said, Palestinians actively resisted Jewish immigration — as they had in the period preceding the rise of Nazism.

“It was natural that when the Palestinians thought that the danger to their existence was real, they started to resist the Zionist project,” Manna explained. “From the beginning, it was clear to the Palestinians from the history of other indigenous people that when other colonies come to a country … that they will be marginalized, kicked out or exterminated.”

That resistance began after World War I and culminated in the 1936-39 uprising — the direct result, he said, of Hitler’s rise to power and the resulting spike of Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

Therefore, it was “not true” that Palestinians played any role in creating a “safe haven” for Jews, whose leaders were already planning “to occupy their country and transform it into a Jewish state,” Manna said….

Liel Liebovitz documents the Unbelievable Lies of Tlaib’s statement:

There were 433 more Holocaust survivors killed by Palestinians and Jordanians violently opposing the creation of a safe haven for Jews in what had historically and spiritually been their homeland. To attempt and rewrite their well-documented experiences is to victimize them yet again, an unforgivable and deeply anti-Semitic act.

Even CNN’s John King noted the historical fraud perpetrated by Tlaib:

“[She] ignored the fact that Palestinian leaders at the time allied themselves with Hitler and that total war is how the Arab world reacted to the declaration of Israeli independence.”

Against this backdrop of Tlaib’s Holocaust inversion and revisionism, the two top Democrat House leaders could have rebuked her. But as with the anti-Semitic comments by Rep. Ilhan Omar, Democrat leadership jumped to Tlaib’s defense.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tweeted that Tlaib’s critics needed to apologize:

Republicans’ desperate attempts to smear @RepRashida & misrepresent her comments are outrageous. President @realDonaldTrump & House GOP should apologize to Rep. Tlaib & the American people for their gross misrepresentations.

Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer echoed Pelosi’s defense of Tlaib and demand for an apology:

If you read Rep. @RashidaTlaib’s comments, it is clear that President Trump and Congressional Republicans are taking them out of context. They must stop, and they owe her an apology.

Pelosi and Hoyer are not alone. “Progressive” Democrats are rallying to Tlaib’s defense, while the mainstream media focuses on the Republican reaction as a means of diverting serious consideration of the pernicious nature of Tlaib’s comments.

Pelosi and Hoyer should hang their heads in shame for enabling and protecting Holocaust inversion and revisionism. The beast they have unleashed will come back to haunt them, and us all.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Democrat Party is delusional. What was in their Kool-Aid?

Well, I guess the secular Jews in the U.S. are re-evaluating their support for the weak-kneed dems, who openly defend the folks who vow to destroy them. (Not holding my breath.) They have forgotten the “hymie town” accusation from jesse Jackson, after their physical support for The Rev. Dr. Martin Luthor King in the south during the open rejection by the dems of the civil rights movement. I watched the fire hoses, dogs and murders of activist Jews and Christian blacks by the democrats, in the democrat-controlled south. Shame on anyone who allows, even for one minute, the current anti-Semitism in our schools and especially in Congress.

I visited Dachau. Blaming 12 Million Jews (approximate current population) for their own demise and all of the problems of the world is despicable, weak and cowardly.

    Milhouse in reply to bear. | May 14, 2019 at 10:36 pm

    I never understood the problem with “Hymie Town”. Jesse Jackson is a morally offensive person, but I’ve never seen reason to think of him as an antisemite.

      guyjones in reply to Milhouse. | May 15, 2019 at 12:45 am

      Ridiculous. Is “hymie” ever an acceptable term to refer to a Jewish person? Especially when coming from a prominent black, so-called “civil rights” leader?

        Milhouse in reply to guyjones. | May 15, 2019 at 1:04 am

        Hymie is not a slur. It is a stereotypical Jewish name, and I see nothing antisemitic in someone using it as a synecdoche for Jews in general.

          scooterjay in reply to Milhouse. | May 15, 2019 at 7:05 am

          So, Jews have to “suck it up” and live with insults? What about blacks? Hispanics?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 15, 2019 at 7:35 pm

          What part of “it is not a slur” was unclear? Hymietown was not an insult, and I don’t understand why so many people got upset at it. I am not at all a fan of Jackson. When he said this I already thought he was a loathsome person, and did not much feel like defending him. But I was astonished that people who until then had supported him suddenly turned on him for something that was just not at all offensive. Palling around with Castro and Assad was just fine with them, but allude to NYC’s large Jewish population by using a stereotypically Jewish name, and they were up in arms. I didn’t and don’t get it. Is it also offensive to refer to Little Mexico as “Josetown”, or to Koreatown as “Kimtown”?

      bear in reply to Milhouse. | May 15, 2019 at 8:06 pm

      January, 1984, Washington Post, when Jesse Jackson referred to jews as “hymies,” and new York as “hymie town,” while running for the presidency, was widely recognized and acknowledged as a slur, causing him to admit “guilt and ask for atonement” in February, 1984. He is quoted as expecting the black journalist to keep it from going public. The black journalist, a Mr. Coleman was threatened with dire consequences by….Farrakhan. You remember Farrakhan, that noted pro-Israel, pro-jewish, nation of islam moderate, don’t you?

      Your position on this is nonsense, historically indefensible, and intellectually vapid. LOOK IT UP!

      Maybe it was his saying ‘hymie town.’

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2019 at 2:37 pm

      If others (blacks, Muslims, lgbtq for example) get to be so touchy, we damned well get to be just as touchy and to demand just as much real suffering and punishment in return.

      Y’all made the bed, now lie in it.

    ROTONDARON in reply to bear. | May 15, 2019 at 8:17 am

    The “DEMONCRATS”…..Of today, have no soul, & follow the warped credo of this “INFANTICIDE”, ABORTION LOVING, SANCTUARY CITY, ILLEGAL VOTER, & CORRUPT PARTY! Didn’t used to be that way…..Thanks to the likes of the Clinton Cartel, Bath House Barry, & so many more mentally deranged Liberal Demoncrats, The party of the “old, & honorable Democrats”, is no more!

bobinreverse | May 14, 2019 at 7:54 pm

Don’t see what big deal is here. She could run against a repub for any elective office in entire US and get 80 percent of the Jewish vote and 90 percent if she was going against Trunp.

    alaskabob in reply to bobinreverse. | May 14, 2019 at 8:27 pm

    The Shoah is “theoretical” to most of them. As Stalin pointed out one death is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic. It is also a form of soft bigotry that she “doesn’t know better” along with reaffirmation of the Left/Islam alliance.

    At about 1.5 billion strong, Islam is the new “minority” of choice for the Dems.

    Milhouse in reply to bobinreverse. | May 14, 2019 at 11:00 pm

    I don’t think so. Even before she opened her mouth, back when liberal Jews could tell themselves she was one of the “nice, peace-loving ones”, she wouldn’t have got more than 70% of the Jewish vote, and now that she’s said what she thinks I doubt she’d get more than 35%. Against Trump maybe 45%.

Selling their souls to the devil. They should be very aware. Tlaib and Omar will turn on them in the end.

Conservative Beaner | May 14, 2019 at 8:29 pm

Pelosi may be the Queen as Speaker of the House but as in chess a queen may be taken out by a lowly pawn. Talib, Omar and AOC are the pawns of the socialist left and they are playing for keeps.

Turn on them? I think they are very clear about their anti Jewish feelings

It’s the idiots who don’t take them seriously or like nazinan, are fearful of them.

They only have the power you give them, and I wish the Dems and blogs would stop giving them any publicity

Dems are in full fascist mode. And they’ll get much worse.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 14, 2019 at 9:05 pm

Well at least here is a little bit of sunlight.

“NBC/WSJ Poll: Democrats’ 2018 Enthusiasm Advantage is…Gone”

healthguyfsu | May 14, 2019 at 10:31 pm

It’s easy to peddle falsehood when you have a minion mob of journalists willing to kowtow to your bidding.

The Dems are scared to death of Tlaib, Omar and AOC. The smartest thing Trump can do is fly them around to make speeches.

    artichoke in reply to bw222. | May 19, 2019 at 2:43 pm

    I am surprised that Tlaib and Omar have been so naive as to let their feelings slip, each of them, to the press. They’ll never live those comments down, nor should they.

    Steny Hoyer does not normally underestimate the intelligence of the public. The only reason he’s doing so here is because he’s desperate — he knows the Dems will lose unless those two are rehabilitated.

I realize that antisemitism is a hot topic right now, I believe that people, who do not like Tlaib, are misconstruing her remarks.

If you view this as a statement made from the point of view of Arabs living in the British Arab Mandate in 1948, there is nothing antisemitic about it.

First, the Arab inhabitants of that region were actively trying to gain independent control of the area from Great Britain. Instead, control of much of the area was given to Jewish settlers from Europe who founded a sovereign nation. One of the reason for this was to assuage the guilt over the systematic annihilation of European Jews, by Nazi Germany. And, it was the Arab residents of Palestine who paid a price for the Holocaust, something which they had no part in. It would sort of like giving Cambodians New Jersey, as their own country. How would the current residents of New Jersey feel about that? Well, the residents of Palestine felt that THEIR land had been stolen from them and given to members of the Jewish faith. Read her remarks with this point of view in mind and it takes on a whole different meaning.

Now, this does not mean that Tlaib is NOT antisemitic. But, the spin put on these remarks seems to be more wishful thinking than accurate analysis.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | May 15, 2019 at 1:21 am

    1. The Jews were not settlers but the indigenous people returning home.

    2. The Arab population were largely themselves recently arrived settlers.

    3. This is the big one: Nothing was given to the Jews, whether to assuage anyone’s guilt or for any other reason. Israel was established by its Jewish citizens and by nobody else. Neither the UK nor the UN had anything to do with it. The UK did all it could to prevent it. The UN proposed a compromise deal that the Arabs rejected. The only resolution that was relevant in international law was that at San Remo in 1920, which obviously had nothing to do with anyone’s guilt or with the future Holocaust.

    4. It was nothing like giving New Jersey to Cambodians; it was like a NJ native tribe declaring independence in their own lands, and then defending themselves when the surrounding Europeans tried to slaughter them.

    5. In any case, any claim that Tlaib’s ancestors played any role in welcoming the Jewish refugees is a d*mned lie; on the contrary, they did their level best to murder every refugee who arrived.

      ROTONDARON in reply to Milhouse. | May 15, 2019 at 8:20 am

      The “UN”, is basically made up of Arab nations, & Jew haters. In America, there are ‘2″ kinds of Jews…..Isralie, & American…..The American Jew, pays little attention to the plight of their race! It isw the “real Jew”, America must defend in their own country.,…..they earned that soil, “bought & paid for in the 6 day war……{ that they did not start…..but definitely finished}

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | May 15, 2019 at 12:21 pm

      Let;s address your points, shall we?

      1) The Jews were no more indigenous to the area we call Palestine as were the Arabs. According to the Old Testiment, the Jews were settlers who moved into the area from Egypt. And, the Jews had not controlled the area for approximately 1400 years prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel. In 1948, when the modern state of Israel was established, the majority population of the area was Muslim Arabs and it was controlled by the British.

      2) Actually, the Muslim settlers of the area had been there sin about the 12th century. To me, 800 years does not sound very recent.

      3) Not so. The British Mandate for Palestine grew out of the Balfour Declaration, of 1917. That declaration put forward the idea of re-establishing the :national home of the Jewish people” alongside the majority Muslim Arab residents of the region. In 1923, the League of Nations issued the Mandate and place the British in charge of Palestine, which had been ceded from the Ottoman Empire following WWI. From 1923 until 1948, when the UN partition of Israel took place, the British had to put up with riots and civil unrest from the Muslim citizens of the region as well as Zionist terrorism. However, there was significant international pressure to adopt the 1948 UN partition agreement. And, like it or not, this international pressure was do almost entirely to the Holocaust.

      4) I’ll accept your point about Native American as opposed to Cambodian. But, my point still remains valid. How would the current residents of NJ feel if the US ceded that state to a tribe of Native Americans as a sovereign nation? The Jews were not the majority in Palestine in the years leading up to the 1948 partition. Control of the area was wrested from Britain, but ceded to them by Britain, at the behest of the international community represented in the UN.

      5) Nowhere in Tlaib’s published remarks do I see ANY reference to the Muslim Palestinians welcoming the Jews, or giving them succor. My reading of her remarks is that she is saying that she feels that control of Palestine was stolen from the majority inhabitants, in 1948, the Muslim Arabs by the rest of the world and ceded to the Jewish people as a “safe haven”. Read her remarks.

      What happened here is some person, or people, misconstrued Tlaib’s remarks, either intentionally or unintentionally. And, a number of people ran with it. When attempting to justify their opposition to her remarks, they, again, misconstrued her meaning, either intentionally or unintentionally.

      Like it or not, the modern state of Israel was established through international action, largely due to the Holocaust. It resulted in some of the people living in the area losing any control they might have had over the governance of the territory as well as their property. And, as evidenced by the backlash, following the establishment of Israel, this action was not popular with the Arabs and other Muslim peoples living in the region. So, it is not hard to understand why certain Muslim Arab people, whose ancestors resided in Palestine, in 1948, might still be upset over the establishment of the state of Israel. The existence of Israel is what it is. Great Britain had control of the area, in 1948, having gained control from the Ottoman Empire under a mandate from the League of Nations, in 1919. Britain ceded control of part of the area to what was to become the State of Israel, in 1948. That country has managed to survive, in a largely hostile environment, for the last 70 years. The citizens of that nation have bilt the country into a regional powerhouse, without the benefit of significant natural resources or avenues of trade. It is now an “established” nation-state in its own right. This has happened throughout the world throughout history. And, it is probably long past time for the Muslim Arabs to accept that. But, that does not mean that Muslim Arabs, having ties to the area, do not feel that they were cheated and their land stolen. We saw the same thing in the US, in the South following the Civil War, and among the American Indian Movement in the 1970s-1990s.

      There three points of view, regarding the establishment of the State of Israel; the Israeli-Jewish view, the Muslim Arab-Palestinian view and the truth.

        mrzee in reply to Mac45. | May 15, 2019 at 5:13 pm

        Whether the Jews (or Israelites) originally arrived from Egypt is irrelevant, people are not plants. They’re indigenous to where their culture was created. Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula regardless of how long they’ve resided elsewhere and Jews are indigenous to Israel, Judea and Samaria.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Mac45. | May 16, 2019 at 9:28 am

        “So, it is not hard to understand why certain Muslim Arab people, whose ancestors resided in Palestine, in 1948”

        Am I alone in not caring about what Arabs like or dislike?

        The problem with your point of view is that you completely ignore that Jews had been moving to the Middle East and buying land as a result of European persecution from the late 1800’s on.

        Their neighbors had been attacking them, and they responded with “terrorism”. Those neighbors stole all their property, while they fled to what would become Israel.

        In my opinion, so called palestinians could have played nice and would have greatly benefited from Jews presence, they did not play and and they have continued to wage war for more than eighty years. It is time to treat them accordingly, whip their tails and scatter them far and wide.

        Another point is that palestinians have intentionally reproduced at high levels, another form of war.

        I am either a 1/4 or 1/8 Native American, it is unclear which. Should I have spent my life fuming over this, or focused on doing well by my children? I chose the latter.

        Any group who treats their children the way palestinians do deserves total contempt. It seems that hate trumps what is best for their children.

        artichoke in reply to Mac45. | May 19, 2019 at 2:53 pm

        Your point (5) makes Tlaib’s remarks even worse. The worst thing about them is not the “Holocaust inversion” if that means giving some credit to Arabs. I don’t mind giving credit to people even if it isn’t sometimes earned. I am a nice guy.

        But how then to interpret “calming feeling”? ANSWER THIS.

        The only interpretation I see is that the mass murder of the Holocaust including Jews, and the other aspects of it that were meant to kill Jewish spirit and culture, give her a calming feeling.

    mrzee in reply to Mac45. | May 15, 2019 at 10:43 am

    The Holocaust had nothing to do with the creation of the state of Israel. The British Mandate to create a Jewish state dated from two decades before the Holocaust and the first “two-state solution”, the Peel Commission, was from 1937.

    Between 1945 and 1948 the British actually sent boats of refugees back from Palestine to Germany, hardly the policy of anyone feeling guilty about the Holocaust. If you look at the record for the UN vote on partition, you’ll see most of those outside the Anglosphere who supported Israel’s creation were from South and Central America and Africa, mostly as an anti-colonial (British) vote.

    Israel exists in spite of the Holocaust, not because of it.

      Mac45 in reply to mrzee. | May 15, 2019 at 12:40 pm

      The British did not want to cede control of Palestine, at all, even though the Balfour Declaration of 1917 supported giving European Jews a “homeland”. As you note, it was a combination of international pressure combined with increasing unrest in the area which finally decided the British to release control of the territory.

      Now, a few things that have to noted, re: international pressure. Europe had been looking for a solution to what they perceived to be the Jewish problem for 50 years. Following the revelations of the Holocaust, in which many non-German people living in occupied territory participated or ignored, the European states welcomed the idea of Jewish residents moving to a “homeland” in the Middle East. South America was heavily populated by Jewish immigrants before, during and after WWII. So, those nations pressured for a Jewish homeland. Finally, you had the USA. At the end of WWII, the USA was THE MOST POWERFUL nation on the planet. And, there was significant pressure from Jews in America for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

      And, remember, there had not been a free State of Israel for 2000 years and no State of Israel for 1800 years.

Mac45 You are totally clueless. When the Ottoman empire dissolved at the end of WWI, the League of the Nations created Mandates to create the present day nations of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq as well as nations in Africa. NO ARAB group made any claim the area of Israel,Judea,Samaria. Only the Jewish people who have been the only nation there in the past 2000 years. Their was never any “Palestinian” people. There is not one mention of “Palestinian(s)” in any documents of the
League of Nations, and not one mention of “Palestinians” in any UN documents until the late 1960s. Jews are not “settlers” in their homeland of more than 3600 years. There was always a Jewish present. The British violated international law by not following assist the Jews to resume governance of the area. The Arab who were there were overwhelming from Egypt, Syrai and other Arab countries. The Arabs never had sovereign rights to the area known as Palestine. Only the Jewish people have sovereign rights according to international law in perpetuity. You statement that Arabs suffered because of the holocaust is absurd. Jews began to return to their homeland at the end of the 19th Century. They didn’t go there because of the holocaust. Your analogies are beyond absurdity. The witch Tlaib is an anti-semite as you seem to be as well.

    Mac45 in reply to Jimi. | May 15, 2019 at 1:12 pm

    Sorry, Jimi, but this is almost pure propaganda.

    The area currently known as Palestine, including the State of Israel, was partitioned by various tribal groups, most notably the Canaanites, until the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea were established in about 1200-1000 BC. The Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC and the Kingdom of Judea was destroyed in 586 BC. The area was controlled by the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Hellenistic Empier and the Seleucid Empire. A revolt of mainly Jewish people occurred in Judea which resulted in the establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom in 110 BC. This was the last autonomous state in Judea. The Roman Republic conquered it in 63 BC and it became the wholly Roman controlled Provence of Judea in 6 AD. Since then the area has been controlled by the Byzantine Empire, various Muslim entities, the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. So, oit is pretty hard to justify the claim that the Jewish people have any outstanding claim to the region, other than any they make themselves.

    While the Zionist Movement began the movement of Jews to Judea, in the late 1800s, it was not until the international community pushed for return of a Jewish State in the region. And, it got very little traction, until 1847, following the Holocaust.

    The Holocaust was a very big deal, in modern history. It was genocidal. And, we still speak of it in hushed tones 80 years later. It is ridiculous to believe that it had absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of the modern Jewish state of Israel in 1948; three years after the end of WWII. What Israel has become, in 2019, is entirely the product of the citizens of that nation. But, that is another story.

    Mac45 in reply to Jimi. | May 15, 2019 at 1:21 pm

    One more thing, the Hebrews were NOT indigenous to the region. They IMMIGRATED there from Egypt [you may be familiar with the Book of Exodus]. And, remember, historically, the Hebrew people were NOT adherents of Judaism when they left Egypt. So, the question then becomes, which group of immigrants has the greater claim on the land?

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Mac45. | May 19, 2019 at 10:11 am

      Even if this was true, evaluating which group has more claim to the land would be based on merit, Jews have lots of merit, palestinians have none.

    artichoke in reply to Jimi. | May 19, 2019 at 2:58 pm

    Indeed these “Palestinians” cannot, without special language training, say the letter “P”. They say it as “B” Or they can say “F”, as in “Filistines”.

Republicans’ desperate attempts to smear @RepRashida & misrepresent her comments are outrageous.

This may be the only way Pelosi can deal with the Muslim assault; pretend that it isn’t really all that pernicious, but is rather a boogieman whipped up by Orange Man Bad. What else is she going to do with them? She can’t throw them out of the House; all she can do is pretend that they aren’t apostles of rampant Jew-hatred, but are being made to sound that way by the Repubs.

All a put-on, of course. She has to make the best (or, rather, make up the best lie) about the situation she’s stuck with.

    artichoke in reply to tom_swift. | May 19, 2019 at 3:03 pm

    I agree. But sometimes Pelosi tells the Big Lie. It’s not unknown from her.

    It is unknown until now, as far as I know, from Steny Hoyer. He’s stayed alive in politics forever by not getting caught in a lie. Nobody hates Steny Hoyer. But now he has no choice, and it must make him profoundly uncomfortable. But what the hell, he’s very old and was going to retire soon anyway.

Stipulated Fate | May 15, 2019 at 2:36 am

Islam is a lie, it teaches liars to hone their craft in furtherance of this violent political ideology wrapped in the guise of a religion.

    ROTONDARON in reply to Stipulated Fate. | May 15, 2019 at 8:26 am

    Islam….is nothing more that=n a “CULT”……Dedicated to killing all “INFIDELS”…..Regardless of their Nationality! the average size Muslim family is about 8 children. They are attempting to “breed themselves into world power…..eliminate our Constitution, & invoke Sharia law! { That’s the plan}

JackinSilverSpring | May 15, 2019 at 7:37 am

The DemoncRat party is becoming a home to antisemites. It boggles my mind that my fellow co-religionists still support it in the numbers they do.

1. The Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. The fact that they originally came from Iraq (not Egypt; they came to Egypt from Israel) is irrelevant; every indigenous people came from somewhere else, and usually displaced whoever was there before. There is almost nowhere in the world where the literal “first nations” are still there.

2. Most of the Arab population in 1948 were very recent immigrants. Not 800 years, more like 50 years, 20 years, or even less. There’s a reason the usual definition of a refugee, requiring that someone had lived somewhere for at least two years before fleeing, was changed for the Arab refugees from Palestine. It has to have been that significant numbers of them had been there for less than two years.

3. Israel was not established by international action, and certainly not by the UK. The UK did not cede any territory to the Jews. On the contrary, when it abandoned its mandate and left the area, it did everything it possibly could to prevent a Jewish state from replacing it. It did its level best to disarm the Jews and arm and train the Arabs, in the hope that the Arabs would wipe the Jews out and then it could do business with them.

Israel was established unilaterally by its Jewish citizens when the British left. Nobody in the world lifted a finger to help them, except, ironically, Stalin, who sent them weapons in the hope that the new state would become communist.

The 1947 UN General Assembly resolution played no part in establishing Israel. The General Assembly has no authority to do anything, let alone establish new countries. It was a proposal, a plan, which had the Arabs accepted it would have established two states. But the Arabs rejected it, so nothing came of it.

The British were originally there by right of a mandate from the League of Nations, which required the UK to encourage Jewish immigration and settlement, and prepare the area for a Jewish homeland. The UK reneged on that mandate in 1938 when it restricted Jewish immigration, and thus lost all legal and moral right to continue to govern. The resulting Jewish revolt was put on hold for WW2, but resumed afterwards and contributed to the British decision to abandon the place. It was no more “terrorism” than the US revolution was.