But Blaming the Jews is So Much Easier!!!

New report: “false promises made by [Arab] leaders and political elites” created Palestinian Nakba
Source: Legal Insurrection

Last week on May 15th was Nakba Day, when Palestinians and their supporters mourn what they call the ‘catastrophe’ of the modern Jewish state’s establishment, mark the displacement of some 750,000 Arabs in 1948, and call for the ‘right’ of return of the Palestinian refugees to their lost homes in present-day Israel.

There are many reasons that hundreds of thousands of Arabs were displaced in 1948—but as we highlighted in a recent post, chief among them was the fear of being harmed by the approaching Zionist forces.

Basically, people fled in terror because they were led to believe, by their own leaders, that the Zionists would slaughter them like they allegedly did in the Arab village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, even though no massacre ever took place there.

These are important facts for anyone interested in Nakba Day and the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem to know, and there’s a new Hebrew-language book by renowned Israeli historian Eliezer Tauber that provides them.

But, as we discussed in our prior post, American scholars and students won’t be able to learn about it. That’s because Tauber can’t manage to land a U.S. academic press contract on account of virulently anti-Israel faculty reviewers of his manuscript who don’t want the truth to come out, lest it upend their own narrative about these historical events, Silencing History: U.S. University Publishers Shun Book ‘Ending the Deir Yassin Myth’.

Tauber’s meticulous research about what really happened at Deir Yassin needs to reach a larger audience, especially because new material keeps coming to light that corroborates his central findings.

Last week, for example, on the day after Nakba Day, the watchdog group Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) published a bulletin that adds important evidence clarifying why Arabs fled their homes in 1948, and provides further support for Tauber’s key claim: the true story of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is one of a massive flight caused not by any Zionist plan to expel the Arabs, but by the propaganda and lies produced by their own leaders.


On March 16th Pal Media Watch released an exclusive video compilation of over a dozen personal stories told by Palestinian refugees who lived through Israel’s War of Independence. It’s a short 7 minute video that’s well worth watching (a full transcript of the testimonies is also available here):


The video aims to explain what caused the Palestinian refugee problem and why hundreds of thousands of Arabs ended up leaving their homes during Israel’s War of Independence in 1948.

It includes 13 translated testimonies by Palestinian refugees who lived in different parts of the country at the time. Despite those differences, there’s a “common denominator” to the personal stories recounted: none of the Palestinians interviewed claims to have been pushed out by Israel’s armed forces, and instead the focus is on what Arab leaders told them to do.

Many of those interviewed claimed that they were following the orders of leaders to evacuate their homes temporarily after which point they were told that they could return with the victorious Arab armies.

Others claim—as Prof. Elizer Tauber describes in his book—that they made the decision to flee with their families because of the “fear of the coming battles” and in particular because of the cruel ‘massacre’ that they heard had happened at Deir Yassin:

Why I left Allar – Orders of Arab army – “Leave…then you will return”

Ali Muhammad Karake: “When news reached us that the Jews were nearing our village, the Arab [Salvation] Army – may Allah protect them – came and said: ‘Leave the village so it won’t happen to you, like Deir Yassin. They slaughter, and do things.’ They said: ‘Leave, but don’t go far from the village because they [the Jews] will make a short visit to the village, leave, and then you’ll return to the village.’ The people left with nothing, even without bread and went into the mountains, and pitched [tents].”

[Al-Quds daily YouTube channel, May 17, 2016]

Significant Points from “How we really became refugees: 13 Palestinians tell their personal stories”

There are a few interesting takeaways from PMW’s new video of Palestinian refugee testimonies.

First, the refugees recounting their stories all express bitterness over the “false promises” of the Arab leaders at the time. The refugees each lament being so gullible as to believe what the Arab regimes and army commanders kept repeating to them—that they’d be returning to their homes “after a few hours.” Many describe how, because they so earnestly believed the political elites who assured them that they’d only be gone for a few days, they even “left their money and gold behind” and “flocks of sheep” in the pastures.

Second, the personal stories of these refugees—which describe large-scale population movements, such as the flight from major cities like Safed and Jaffa—depict Arab armies that planned to exact a ruthless price on the Zionists. In one testimony from 2008, for instance, a Palestinian journalist claims that Arab officers told him that they had “come in order to exterminate the Zionists and their state.” Other testimonies confirm that army commanders, leaders, and elites wanted the “battlefields cleared” of Arab civilians. Basically, they were told to “get out of the way” so that they wouldn’t impede the troops and so that the “fighting [against Israel] would succeed.”

Third, while many of the testimonies suggest that the Palestinian Arabs left their homes “out of fear,” at least one says that the Jews offered him and his fellow villagers the chance to stay in Israel. Recorded on official PA TV back in 2013, one Palestinian refugee claims that the “Jews gave us choices,” including the option to “hand over your weapons and stay on your land and live the way you live.”

Lastly, the testimonies that PMW has compiled are all “presented openly” by the refugees themselves, and have been featured for years in official Palestinian Authority media. It’s important to note that some of the testimonies are by people in current leadership positions in the PA. Even PA President Mahmoud Abbas makes a cameo appearance, explaining why his family along with others from Safed made the decision to leave in 1948.

As author of the bulletin, PMW’s Itamar Marcus, notes:

All of this suggests that awareness of Arab responsibility for the refugee problem must be widespread among the Palestinian population—even though Palestinian leaders refuse to accept responsibility in international forum.”


In a recent op-ed, Times of Israel editor David Horovitz insists that the international community needs to tell Gaza’s “Hamas-abused masses” the truth, namely that they don’t have a ‘right’ of return and a ‘return’ will not happen:

After Monday’s terrible violence and loss of Palestinian life on the Gaza border, the world owes the Palestinians some painful but simple truths…What the [Hamas] terror group calls ‘Palestine’—i.e. Israel—is not going to be ‘liberated.’ Majority-Jewish Israel isn’t going anywhere. Most specifically, given the current Hamas tactic for bringing Gazans to the border, the ‘refugees,’ in their ostensible millions, are not going to ‘return.’…The world…owes it to the Palestinians to make clear that Israel will not be required or pressured to commit national suicide as a Jewish state by absorbing millions of descendants of Palestinians who used to live in what is today’s Israel.”

Horovitz suggests that a “straightforward means” for shattering the illusion of a ‘right’ of return is to correct the definition and classification of Palestinian refugees designated by UNRWA (the UN’s Relief and Works Agency for Palestine).

That’s a good place to start.

For 70 years UNRWA has fueled an unrealistic hope and has encouraged millions of Palestinians to “dream” of a ‘right’ of return, because unlike every other refugee population on the planet, UNRWA allowed Palestinians to inherit refugee status. In preventing peace and reasonable compromise, it’s a false hope that’s been even more devastating for the Palestinians than the pack of lies and false promises told to them by their own leaders back in 1948.

Bottom line: The tens of thousands of Gazans participating in the violent Hamas-instigated ‘March of Return’ likely really do believe that their grandparents and great-grandparents were unjustly expelled by Israel in 1948 and that they now have every right to return to ‘Palestine’ and undo the Jewish state. But PMW’s new video compilation of refugee testimonies underscores that most Palestinians probably know deep down that Arab elites and armies were largely to blame for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, and not Israel. So the ‘right of return’ is unfounded and the personal stories of the Palestinian refugees themselves provides the proof.

Miriam F. Elman is an Associate Professor of Political Science and the Inaugural Robert D. McClure Professor of Teaching Excellence at the Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs, Syracuse University. She is the editor of five books and the author of over 65 journal articles, book chapters, and government reports on topics related to international and national security, religion and politics, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She also frequently speaks and writes on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) anti-Israel movement. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter @MiriamElman

They hate you. They really, really hate you.

Enjoy the lack of self-awareness found in the most popular Progressive comments to a Times op-ed warning against the dangers of Trump Derangement Syndrome. One of the joys in life during the Trump era is watching Progressives decompensate and self-destruct. All their rhetoric about inclusiveness, spiritual generosity, intellectual superiority has always been merely a thin…

via Progressives hysterically protest article telling them to be less hysterical — Bookworm Room


School Choice: Reporting vs Editorializing

From Real Clear Education

We tallied the number of major media news stories and editorials that mentioned each of these studies. We searched one international source (The Economist) and five national sources (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times). In each case, keyword searches included combinations of the researcher(s), the school choice program, and the location studied. To ensure consistency, we utilized the search engine LexisNexis, a database that collects news articles from national and international news outlets.

What did we find? It turns out that news stories in these outlets played no favorites when covering school choice research. Thirteen news stories cited a “positive” study and 15 referenced a “negative” study. While some kinds of studies received much more attention than others, coverage was relatively balanced within the five pairs. The coverage was also relatively balanced for each of the various outlets. For example, The New York Times published two articles referencing a positive study and three articles referencing a negative study; for The Washington Post, the figures were five and three.

While the news coverage was quite balanced, the editorial pages were another story. Editorials and op-eds in these newspapers mentioned negative school choice studies twice as often as they did positive studies, with 36 mentions of negative studies compared to 18 of positive studies. Newspaper editorials featured 18 mentions of negative studies versus only eight mentions of positive studies, and about the same ratio was evident across columns and op-eds.

So, major media news coverage appears to be largely impartial when reporting on research in the contested field of school choice. At the same time, the editorial staffs at the most influential newspapers have clearly opted (as is their right) to tout negative research findings much more frequently than positive ones. Given that editorials reference school choice research findings at a substantially higher rate than does news coverage, it’s easy to see why some observers may regard media coverage as tilted, even when news coverage itself is not. When the nation’s most influential newsrooms play favorites, they should be called out. We’ve done that before. But it’s also fair to give due credit when reporters play it straight, as they have when it comes to school choice research.

On Starbucks and “Racism”

Source: Ace of Spades HQ

1. Restaurants/coffee shops like Starbucks exist, in case the Social Justice Warriors weren’t aware of this, to sell things to paying customers.

2. These shops usually have chairs and tables. These are not “free” for anyone to use. They are provided as an included benefit, a lagniappe, for those who actually do pay for food or coffee.

3. Indeed, as businesses don’t give anything away for “free,” the cost of space, and of air conditioning, and the costs of furniture, etc., is actually included in the cost of the food and drink they sell to paying customers (there’s that phrase again).

4. Ergo, if you do not buy anything in the shop, you are not paying your share of the cost of space, the air conditioning, the lighting, the furniture, etc.

5. And, in fact, by using the limited resource of available chairs and tables, a nonpaying noncustomer is actually preventing paying customers from using them.

6. The individuals here were not paying customers. They were free riders, permitted in the store only due to the indulgence of the manager and his desire to not make a scene.

7. Rather than accepting that their presence was merely tolerated as an indulgence, they decided to take it up another notch by asking for the bathroom code, despite (I’m pretty sure) signage indicating that bathrooms were for paying customers only.

8. This is the standard way these shops operate. They do not wish to become private unfunded homeless shelters, providing indoor chairs and bathroom facilities for transients.

9. After being told they could not use the bathrooms unless they were paying customers, instead of doing the obvious thing of laying down a buck and a half for the smallest size tea, thus complying with Starbucks’ rules and becoming a minimum-level paying customer, they apparently refused.

10. They were then told to leave, which is Starbucks’ right — again, the table and chairs and space are provided as a courtesy to paying customers, not anyone who just wants to get off the street and use the business as an office-away-from-home as they wait for another party, who would probably also be a nonpaying noncustomer. I say that because if they planned on staying at Starbucks, they shouldn’t have been so resistant to just paying for a tea.

Unless they intended to be briefed on real estate opportunities by this friend for a few hours, also without ever paying for anything in the shop.

11. Black people often claim that white people don’t listen to them or don’t believe them about cops and businesses hassling them. Well, let me note that goes in the other direction: I and most white people here can attest that this rule — no bathroom use for nonpaying noncustomers– also applies to white people, and I’ve been denied the code or the key most of the times I’ve asked to use the bathroom without first paying. Sometimes I’ll say “I have to go to the bathroom, but I’ll order as soon as I’m out,” and they give up the code, and then I order.

This is not a Black People Only rule.

This rule is so omnipresent I’m frankly shocked these people were surprised by it. I understand the rule and the exchange (my purchase for the accommodation of a seat or use of the bathroom) implicitly. Usually, if I have to use the bathroom, I don’t even ask for the key without making at least a small purpose. I don’t want then to tell me “No, it’s against store policy” so I just buy something to avoid that tiny indignity.

Why was this such an outrage to these guys? Do they never get out?

And again: Why not just shell out the buck and a half for a small tea?

If you’re going to deny the lived experience of members of an entire race as false and made-up, then you’re a racist.

And pretty much all white people can tell you: Yes, this is standard. If someone gives you the key without a purpose you have won the day and should count yourself lucky, or count the clerk as kind, because that’s not very common.

12. Having now gone from one indulgence to asking for another, the manager thought it was time to inform these gentlemen that Starbucks is not, in fact, a public convenience, but a private business engaged in the business of actual business, and asked them to leave.

Once again, they seemed to have ignored the possibility of just ordering a small tea as a way to gain the right to sit and use the bathrooms.

13. They refused to leave, now announcing themselves as squatters, and so the manager called the cops to escort them out — which is what any business would do when their quite lawful and understandable rule that you either buy something or leave is ignored.

14. The cops came and also told the gentlemen it was time to move on, given that they had no legal right to be in the store, and were continuing to refuse the trivial gesture of paying $1.50 for a small tea that would make this situation all copacetic, and then they apparently told the cops they weren’t going anywhere. They apparently believed they had/have the right to sit in someone else’s private property uninvited and unwanted until they feel like leaving.

15. They also apparently believe that the claim “I’m waiting for a friend” somehow gives them the right to remain uninvited and unpaying in someone else’s establishment. They also seem to not realize that if they just went outside and waited for their friend there, their friend would of course see them as he approached the doors to enter.

16. Now having refused the cops’ reasonable request to leave — and therefore now in defiance of a cops’ lawful order to stop trespassing on someone else’s private property when you have been lawfully asked to leave — they were arrested.

17. And no, I don’t agree with Ed Morrissey’s claim that the manager should have expected them to be arrested when he called the cops. That’s absurd. Most cops do not arrest homeless people laying on a blanket outside a restaurant when the restaurant calls the cops. Nor do they usually arrest drunks who refuse to leave a bar at closing time. They simply tell the person it’s time to move on to go bother another business, or call a cab and go home.

I don’t believe the cops had any intent to arrest these guys; they had the intent to get them to leave, per the owner’s lawful request that they do so. I think it was their refusal to do so that escalated this from a “Move on” situation to a “Now we’re taking you in” situation.

It’s a bizarre idea that someone should “expect” that minor interactions with the cops like this would of course result in an arrest, instead of a simple “Move on.”

18. But this is of course racism because the people being asked to move on were black. Once upon a time, the civil rights movement was dedicated to ensuring that blacks were treated no differently than whites by police and businesses; now it seems dedicated to ensuring they are treated differently — with greater latitude and indulgence.

Because yes, white people are denied the right to use bathrooms all the time, and no, white people cannot just set up shop in a private business without paying for anything without being asked to either buy something or find someplace else to go.

19. I have a small amount of expertise on this: I used to be a waiter. And I can tell you that even paying customers, who’ve bought a fair amount of food and drink, will be pressured to pay and leave if they overstay at their table without ordering more and more food or drink. Restaurants will give you about 30-40 minutes after coffee to wrap up — assuming it’s a sit-down restaurant — and then, if you just continue to gab, waiters will begin conspiring to pressure you to leave. These pressure tactics include giving you the bill, even when you did not ask for it, and then repeatedly coming to the table to ask “Is there anything else you’ll be needing?” If you do not take the hint, you will ultimately be told you have to clear the table to allow other patrons to sit.

And yes, I’ve had to do this. I was young and felt uncomfortable about it, but the owner told me: Tell them to leave. That table is worth money to me and they can’t occupy it for an hour and a half after their meal as if it’s their living room.

(BTW, I thought I’d lose my tip over this, which would have sucked, as they did order big meals and lots of drinks, but they were cool about. They did not start berating me about their imagined rights to occupy a table on a busy night for hours and hours. They understood that their overstay had been indulged, but ultimately, the restaurant reserved the right to end this indulgence after a reasonable time.)

(And, BTW: having been a waiter, and having experienced this a lot, if I’m out to dinner with you, and we begin to overstay, I will start getting antsy and saying “We should either go or order more food and drink or relocate to the bar” because I know that restaurants and waiters start to get very pissy about overstaying, no-longer-ordering table-squatters. The tenseness of this situation was instilled in me from my own career as a waiter.)

(If you didn’t know this, you’re either someone who leaves promptly, or you’ve been very indulged by wait-staffs, or you just don’t pick up on social cues and nervous energy very well. Basically, the rule is that after 45 minutes, restaurant patrons, like unrefrigerated fish, begin to stink.)

20. Although this happens all the time to white people, no stories about it ever go viral, because, well, who gives a fuck. It’s stupid to even complain about commonsensical policies.

21. Yet this is now national news because it happened to black guys.

22. Who despite the many opportunities to make all of this square by just ordering a $1.50 small tea, just continued to demand further indulgence of the manager.

23. Now Starbucks is saying this was all contrary to their policy and, presumably, anyone who wants to sit in their shops and not order anything and use the bathrooms has the right to do so as long as they like.

24. Starbucks, in other words, has just announced its stores are not stores primarily, but are now privately-funded shelters and bathroom facilities for the homeless. You don’t have to spend a slim dime in the store to sit as long as you please and use the bathrooms.

25. That’ll be great for Starbucks’ business. Their yuppie douchebag clientele love the homeless in the abstract, but we’ll see how much they appreciate their coffee shops being jammed with them, close-up-like, occupying most tables and chairs.

26. I don’t even want to defend Starbucks; I want them to have the full taste of Social Justice Warrior progressivism. If this is the company’s ideology, then they should live that ideology to the full.

27. I have a feeling Starbucks is just claiming this policy until the Social Justice Warrior locusts find a new business to harass, and then, when they do move on, they’ll quietly shift the policy back to “Paying Customers Only,” but I think it would be a hoot if conservatives monitored them to make sure they’re sticking with this new, idiotic policy of letting anyone just sit and lounge without actually buying anything.

28. I think it would be funny if rightwing blogs made sure they were continuing this policy and made sure everyone knew they were backsliding when they do, inevitably, backslide into a non-insane position.

29. Because fuck them.

BTW: Starbucks will begin implementing a new policy of instructing employees about “unconscious racism.”

Soon, they’ll have to start training people to avoid “unconscious desire to keep vagrants and transients from just parking themselves in their shops all damn day.”

How History Gets Rewritten

A historian has written an article posted at Real Clear History, “Pontiac’s Rebellion and Small Pox as a Weapon.”  The author is referring to an Indian War (1763-66) that occurred on the heals of the French-Indian War (1754-63).  The purpose of the article, it seems, is to condemn the British and Americans for their mistreatment of …

Source: How History Gets Rewritten