Those Who Destroy You Will Come From Amongst You

Jerusalem Post

February 21, 2010

Few biblical verses are more commonly misquoted than Isaiah 49:17, in which the prophet promises Israel that they have not been forsaken, that the day will come when your destroyers and despoilers shall leave you. But the Hebrew words that mean shall leave you “mimech yetzei,u” can also be easily translated as “will come from among you.” Taken out of context, therefore, Isaiah’s promise of a secure future can be read to mean, “Those who destroy and despoil you will come from amongst you.” And though it’s not at all what Isaiah meant, the mistranslation still rings true.

Much has been written about the latest confrontation between Im Tirzu (“If You Will It,” an obvious reference to Herzl’s famous phrase), an organization of Israeli students committed to combating what it sees as post-Zionist or anti-Zionist forces in Israeli society and on Israeli campuses, and the New Israel Fund (NIF), which Im Tirzu accuses of funding many of the left-wing organizations that contributed to the findings of the Goldstone Report.

As in most such cases, both parties may have overreacted. Im Tirzu’s shameful ad depicting Naomi Chazan (president of the NIF) sporting a horn was in exceptionally poor taste, evoking the caricatures of Jews once common in Nazi publications and ubiquitous in today’s Arab press. But the NIF’s efforts to promote democracy in Israel, without question a laudable goal, also need calibration.

For any good to come out of the vicious battle of words between Im Tirzu and the NIF, certain elements of the Jewish world must recognize a plain truth that they would rather ignore. That truth is this: the Jewish People is at war.

There were decades in which the Arabs believed that Israel could be destroyed by standing armies. But that, even our enemies understand, is not about to happen. Since 1973, no standing Arab army has dared attack Israel. In subsequent years, the Arab world tried economic boycotts and terrorism. But neither destroyed the Jewish state. Having failed on those fronts, therefore, the Arab world has adopted a new strategy: the delegitimization of Israel. In this, it is joined by countries and individuals far from the Middle East.

OUR ENEMIES are winning this trial in the court of international opinion. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, Richard Goldstone and British courts issuing arrest warrants for Tzipi Livni are only the best-known witnesses. The real list is much more extensive. One does not need a vivid imagination to envision a scenario in which the world simply imposes a binational solution on this region. If one is not absolutely committed to Jewish sovereignty, that solution actually makes some sense. Thus, this war over Israel’s legitimacy is one that we cannot afford to lose.

Nor is the State of Israel all that is at stake. American Jewish life as we now take it for granted would not survive the loss of Israel for very long. It would take only a few years after Israel’s demise for American Jews to lose the confidence and optimism that they now take for granted. After all, what is different about the Spanish, French and Italians, on the one hand, and the Basques, Chechnyans and Tibetans on the other?

All six nations have rich histories, cultures, languages, religious traditions and more. But three help determine the course of history because they have states while the latter three are peoples to which history simply happens. Israel is what puts Jews in the former category rather than the latter. And the transformation from our being the objects of history to shapers of history has been so thorough that most Jews simply cannot imagine the profound change in Jewish life that would ensue were Israel a vestige of the past.

Because this is a war of words with potentially lethal consequences, words matter more than ever. Thus, those who believe that territorial concessions might bring about peace must do more than simply say that. They must ask whether now, as the international community creeps steadily closer to deciding that the re-creation of the Jewish state was a grave mistake (and as Iran makes constant progress in its quest for a nuclear weapon virtually unfettered by Western sanctions), is the time for Jews to ascend the steps of Capitol Hill to convince congressmen and women to put more pressure on Israel.

Similarly, few thoughtful people would deny that Israel’s democratic institutions need strengthening, or that as long as Israel’s Arabs remain in Israel, Israel ought to provide them greater economic opportunity and increased inclusion in Israel’s democratic processes.

BUT COMMITMENT to our democracy must not come at the cost of commitment to our survival. No country at war maintains the same freedoms of speech or action that countries not facing existential threat can permit themselves. Since the Jewish people is at war, it must think as a people at war must think.

One can understand some American philanthropists’ eagerness to support the Israeli-Arab organization Adalah, which purports to “promote and defend the rights of Arab citizens of Israel.” Yet instinctive support for a vision of greater democracy isn’t sufficient in this day and age. Harder questions need to be asked. Adalah’ proposed Israeli “Democratic Constitution” calls for ending Israel as a Jewish state. Is that a proposition that American Jews should be funding, however indirectly? Adalah’s Web site discusses the “Israeli attack on Gaza,” offering no indication that Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, whatever one might think of its conduct, was a response to years of shelling from Gaza. Is that the perspective that American Jews, regardless of their political dispositions, ought to be funding as the world inches closer to declaring Israel a pariah state?

Im Tirzu is not the issue. Nor is the NIF, or Naomi Chazan. The issue is what a people at war for its very survival can allow itself. The issue is whether as the world’s noose tightens around the very notion of Israel’s legitimacy, Jews can allow themselves the liberties we might otherwise permit ourselves were we not fighting for our very existence. As the fate of Isaiah’s prophecy reminds us, it takes only a few words to move from a vision of a secure future to one in which those who could destroy us come from our very own midst.

About Daniel Gordis

Dr. Daniel Gordis is Senior Vice President and the Koret Distinguished Fellow at Shalem College in Jerusalem. The author of numerous books on Jewish thought and currents in Israel, and a recent winner of the National Jewish Book Award, Dr. Gordis was the founding dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the University of Judaism.

29 Comments on "Those Who Destroy You Will Come From Amongst You"

  • David Stolow says

    Get specific. Just what, or better yet,k whose, liberties, are you prepared to forgo? Im Tirzu, which gets some of it’s US tax deductible funding from the same organization thaqt raises money to defend settlers who destroy Arab olive groves and an Evangelist who once said that Hitler was G-d’s way of getting the Jews to move back to Israel, seems to be part of a larger effort by the right wing to silence critics. Such activites are encouraged by the current government which struck yet another blow against good will towards Israel by denying a meeting to US Congressmen brought to Israel by J Street.

    Are you saying that because Israel is threatened with deligitimization (and I agree that it is) that it’s now OK to threaten the head of IRAC with a felony arrest for merely supporting the woman who wore a tallit at The Wall? Or would you shut down those who object to the outrages going on in Sheik Jarrah and Silwan? Democracy is very messy and can be very ugly but once you start to quash it you wind up doing far more harm than good. If anything, Israel needs more openess and freedom so that it become a place where all Jews may live freely.

    I agree with your translation of Isaiah. History has shown that the Jews worst enemires are often ourselves. But what scares me is not that some insignificant portion of my NIF donations goes to Adalah. What scares me are the close to 30 MKs in the current coalition who do not believe that Israel needs or even ought to be a democratic state.

    As for the Im Tirzu/NIF squabble, NIF is going to get a significant increase in my contribution this year.

  • Kalman Bookman says

    Good erev Shabbos

    I liked your article but , forgive me for suggesting that this was said, clearer and more succinctly by Thomas Jefferson over 200 years ago -“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”

    and these words are cast in stone on his plinth in DC!!

    The NIF is the most pernicious influence in jewish Life today. I used to be a subscriber until I asked for confirmation nearly 4 years ago about their 20 million US$ nedovoh from the Ford Foundation – they never replied.

    Naomi Chazan , if I recollect, is a small motherly figure who at first glance appears to like everybody’s heimishe granny!! but over the years she seems to have increased her dislike of more and more Jews – is she currying favour with the anti semitic tenured collegiates at TA University ?

    But why?

    One has to raise the scenario of these detractors’ wish coming true – Chas VaSholom – would peace reign ?

    Like hell it would: it would rain blood and it would be mostly Shi’ite versus Sunny with Jews being only the aperitif.

    They would bomb themselves vack into the stone age.

    Now that I have criticised everything, may I say something constructive.

    The world seems to be desperate to eliminate world dependence on Hydro Carbon fuel and it is the petrodollars from the oil rich muslim countries that has funded 90% of Western [and Eastern ] Academia.

    The day that the petrodollar resorts to Zimbabwean proportions will be the start of peace for Israel



  • Jon Lopatin says

    You need to say more than that NIF should not support Adalah and Im Tirtzu should not display Naomi Chazan with horns. If the Jewish people is at war and this has implications for civil liberties in Israel, could you say more about what these implications are? If Israeli democracy needs to be improved, how should this be done in a time of war? In other words, your piece picked only the low-hanging fruit: the left shouldn’t support anti-Zionist groups in the name of civil rights, and the right should not used threatening images to vilify the left. As a voice of reason and civility, can’t you take the discussion a little further? Those of us who are trying to balance some very difficult realities and to get beyond rhetoric could use some help .

  • Brynn Sugarman says

    When I adopted my Vietnamese daughter, I was required to PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE USA on her behalf (she was a baby) in order to secure American citizenship for her.
    Yet when Liebowitz proposes the same thing for citizens of Israel, he is accused of fascism.
    Considering that we are indeed at war, one would think that the least we could do is demand the same loyalty to the state that the American government, whose existence is not at risk, requires.
    Those Arabs (and others) who are against the state can find a better place to live (or at least have their social security and socialized medicine withdrawn,) while those who pledge loyalty will earn the right to enjoy democracy at its best.

    Brynn Sugarman
    Ra’anana, Israel

  • Stephen says

    I’m afraid there may be more to the story than just the requirements of a state at war. There are responsibilities that come with sovereignty and governance that are denied those who lack it. For two millenia Jews were denied sovereignty and learned to adapt. Often these adaptations required a high level of humility and sacrifice in the face of hostility from host countries in order to insure survival. Israel does not have the luxury of seeking accommodation with enemies whose stated goal is their destruction. A sovereign state has a duty to aggressively protect its citizens from internal and external enemies. If it fails in in this duty the state cannot survive.

    Sovereigns by their nature cannot always occupy the moral high ground no matter how just their cause. States use force and deception. Their armies, no matter how moral, must be employed in killing enemies and their internal security services keep secrets and employ dubious means to project the state’s interests.

    Many Jews regard their community as historically moral and can never be comfortable with the obligations of sovereignty. The NIF and J Street fall into this category. Hence, actions taken in self defense can never meet their standard and will inevitably conflict with their impossibly narcissistic sense of what moral behavior requires. Ultimately, the Jewish community must decide what is more important – impeccable morality or saving lives. I vote for saving lives.

  • Howard Stevens says

    Sadly, Rabbi Gordis continues to ignore the elephant in the room – the Occupation.

    I wish he willed himself to confront this issue, analyze it and respond to the criticism of what much of the world sees – the unfair and illegal usurpation of another people’s basic rights.

    For better or worse, in 1947 it was agreed between the legitimate representatives of Zionism and the rest of the world through United Nations that the dream of Palestine becoming the new Jewish state was over. It was a very difficult decision for those courageous founders to make, but it was a realistic and principled one. Yet some people today want to ignore the struggle, revisit that decision and make believe that Israel was given on a silver platter.

    Rabbi Gordis rightly recognizes that the existential threat of the Arabs refusing to accept Israel is minimal. But isn’t the most serious threat to Israel the loss of its legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world – without whose assent Israel would simply not have been born? Isn’t the antipathy of Britain and France and Chile and Turkey much more dangerous to Israel than the views of its Arab neighbors?

    He is also right that the most potent enemies of Zionism are within. But aren’t these enemies are those ideologues who believe that Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem must be part of modern Israel?

    And if we are quoting biblical verses, how about “Chose life!” Isn’t the breach of the 1947 pact a suicidal choice?

    The danger is within “our very midst” – it is the fantasy of rejecting the basis upon which Medinat Yisrael was founded and seeking an empire that cannot be achieved.

  • Happy and Proud says

    The problem is not that the NIF and the organizations that it (and the EU) fund support democracy, the problem is that those organizations support the destruction of Israel and potentially, another genocide.

    All Israeli citizens have the same rights by law, with non-Jews having fewer responsibilities (also by law). If in practice some groups are discriminated against, then correcting that situation will not hurt the Jewish state. However, this is not what the NIF and their ilk propose to do. They plan to destroy the Jewish state by giving non-Jews, in particular Arabs, the ‘right’ to take over Jewish property without compensation, enter from PA-controlled territory without limitation, prevent Jews from purchasing land in certain areas, etc. These are not ‘equal rights’. This is racism againt Jews, plain and simple.

    You are correct that we are at war. The NIF and their grantees are the enemy. Democracy isn’t the problem, those who wish to destroy us are.

  • Of course, this issue plays out not only in Israel, but also in the Diaspora. So-called “peace” groups, with Jewish participants loudly brandishing their Jewish heritage for the sole purpose of undermining Israel, have been attempting to subvert our own Jewish community institutions to serve that agenda. In San Francisco, this reached a tipping point last summer in an incident that Daniel referred to in an earlier column: the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival’s presentation of the film “Rachel” coupled with an invitation to Cindy Corrie to speak after the film, with the entire event “co-presented” by American Friends Service Committee and Jewish Voice for Peace. If you don’t know the full story, see

    The (entirely justified) uproar from the community following this egregious event has now led to the adoption of clear guidelines by the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation regarding Israel-related programing (see This is a very necessary step towards putting our own community’s house in order, and should be a model for Jewish communities in the Diaspora.

    I would also note that while I personally support Women of the Wall, and I donate to IRAC among other social justice organizations in Israel, it is a grave mistake to conflate that issue with the NIF and its support of Adalah. NIF doesn’t get a pass because it also supports good organizations, and criticism of NIF does not mean that one opposes all of the projects that it funds. If you read the guidelines issued by the San Francisco Federation, you will see that NIF itself would not qualify for support because of its support of Adalah. This may become a test case in the very near future.

  • Norman Zelvin says

    From the destruction of the second temple onward the majority of the jews lived in diaspora. Rome at that time historically as an example compromised about 25% Jewish residents for example.Survival of the heart of Judaism as a people will depend on the connection of the diaspora with Jerusalem. The diaspora must continue its promanance in world affairs even as it peels off its failures and intensifies its kernal of believers.It will be a never ending struggle if you will.

  • marc says

    “BUT COMMITMENT to our democracy must not come at the cost of commitment to our survival.”

    i agree with this and tone of most of this piece. but, im not sure about survival of American Jewry, G-d forbid, post Israel. Survival of Jewish people depends on our connection to torah, mitzvah, jewish education, etc not necessarily Israel. we survived for over 3000 years without having state of Israel.

    i think if American, French, Canadian, Australian Jews want Israel to survive, they should be willing to move there. And if Israeli’s want support of American jews, they should make it damn attractive for them to move there. Right now, i see more israeli’s flooding into Los Angeles then the other way round, unfortunately

    Maybe its all part of the divine plan–G-d willing.

  • Geraldo Coen says

    Very good points made, Mr. Gordis. I would add that the delegitimations problem is not an Israel only problem, it is Diaspora’s problem. And yes, it is serious, it could lead to the destruction of the Jewish people. Delegitimation is a first step.
    The answer? A strong mobilization, by Israel+Diaspora, to revert the image of Israel, and of Jews.
    Not simple Hasbara, but a real Public Diplomacy gigantic effort.
    For us Jews, it is a matter of death or life!

  • jpatrick says

    Continued aggression and oppression will only lead to more instability and the possible destruction of Israel. Why do the Jewish people continue to war year after year, decade after decade? There are so many other qualities they possess that could be used to create the desired result of the State. How many generations have to endure the suffering — when they could use their brilliant minds to create something other than violence. Why is war the only path to statehood? It is not. Nothing comes from doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • Gabe says

    Dr, Gordis, two comments:

    First, regarding ‘One can understand some American philanthropists’ eagerness to support the Israeli-Arab organization Adalah, which purports to “promote and defend the rights of … Arab citizens of Israel.”‘ You are setting the bar far too low for the philanthropists. Conscientious and responsible philanthropists base their decisions on analysis of how candidate organizations actually spend their funs, not the self-serving promotional literature on their Web sites or marketing brichures.

    Second, regarding “Im Tirzu is not the issue. Nor is the NIF, or Naomi Chazan.” NIF is not the root problem but it is a mighty contributing factor, for the indisputable fact is that NIF—an Israeli NGO—is aiding organizations that seek de facto to undermine the state of Israel.


  • marc says

    jpatrick, let me be the kindest reply to your drivel, before the other people pop their springs over you–you are sounding like an idiot. go to israel, take a look around, talk to people and then get back to us.

  • Wisdo says

    Its hard for most non-israelis to understand how Israel, a nuclear power with one of the worlds largest armies, fears it will cease to exist at some point. How? by magic?

    It seems an unreasonable fear. Unreason, and hate seem to dominate the discourse surrounding Israels boarders.

    The international community is not asking Israel to cease to exist. Nor are the Palestinians even. They are just asking for justice, which is something any adult can see – they are not receiving from Israel.

    Religion and national Identity may be of primary importance to some Jews, but in an increasingly secular world, one which is ‘secular’ or agnostic even in nationalistic terms – the preoccupation with having Israel be a “jewish” state seems bizarrely anachronistic. Which is perhaps why there is a disconnect between how Israelis perceive world opinion “they hate us for being jews” and world opinion itself “stop opressing these people who as far as we are concerned are identical to you and deserve a normal life”.

    Because it looks awfully like ethnic cleansing from where everyone else is standing.

  • jpatrick says

    Simmer down, get a hold of your emotions and stop the name calling. Is that how you treat others with an opposing viewpoint?
    It surely doesn’t allow for any discussion, is that your habit to put others down to make your point?
    I have been to Israel, I guess it depends on where you go.
    this sums it up …

  • Daniel Gordis tackles the very challenging question (“Those Who Destroy You Will Come From Amongst You” Magazine Feb 19 ’10). I think of it as one of censorship or restraint in time of war. If this issue is not enough of a challenge I was also very much struck by the idea that “those who believe that territorial concessions might bring about peace must do more than simply say that”
    I believe that this challenge also needs to be answered, as well as its counterpart: Those who believe we can maintain our control and continue to support Jewish Israeli citizens living in Judea & Samaria surrounded by a large Palestinian Arab, Muslim population without equal rights, including the right to vote need to explain how that can possibly work in the real world.
    Yoram Getzler
    Moshav Aminadav

  • marc says


    “why do the JEWISH PEOPLE continue to war, year after…”

    Why do you focus on jewish people; esp in a country that is being attacked since inception like israel. why not ask why a rich country like America, mostly inhabited by jesus loving christians (peace, love, and forgiveness) is at war year after year–that might be more interesting.

    “…path to statehood”
    Israel is already a State–that’s one reason i asked if you had been there.

    and for Wisdo–“justice from israel…” what would justice look like? Israeli’s firing thousands of rockets from ashdod? send terrorists into cafes in the west bank blowing up people at parties?

    no, i cannot have a discussion with you.

    the part of Daniel’s piece that i find most interesting, is the belief that American jewish life would not survive the end of Israel. Jewish life has survived the Romans, the Nazi’s, the Persians, the Brittish etc etc. Why wouldnt Jewish life in America not ‘survive’? Maybe no country in the world would survive the end of Israel, G-d forbid. And this i have an easier time believing.

  • Wisdo posted :

    “The international community is not asking Israel to cease to exist. Nor are the Palestinians even. They are just asking for justice, which is something any adult can see – they are not receiving from Israel.”

    Actually, anyone who promotes the fiction of the “right” of return (of great-grandchildren of refugees from the war the Arabs started in 1947) is asking that Israel cease to exist as a Jewish state. And anyone who supports the “BDS” movement is asking that Israel cease to exist as a Jewish state,since that movement demands not just Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, but also this non-existent “right”. Read the PACBI statements.

    As long as the Palestinians’ OWN definition of “justice” is the elimination of Israel, then they will be unable to build a state of their own.

  • Wisdo says

    As long as the Palestinians’ OWN definition of “justice” is the elimination of Israel, then…

    The Palestinians OWN defintiion of “justice” is to be left alone you’ll find, if you were to for example TALK to them.

  • jpatrick says

    War is a disease that affects all people regardless of who, what or where and you are right, marc, the US leads the charge-it is a tragic waste of lives and a hypocritical foreign policy.
    I referred to Jewish People because that was the topic in the article.
    It is my belief that American Jewish life is thriving and will survive, as will Jews worldwide and so too, will Israel. But thriving means living with others,not just surviving.
    Certainly, it is a two way street and I say the exact same thing to the other side.
    To achieve survival/life of peace through war is not an expedient strategy. When the language of war creeps into everyday conversation, it muddies the picture—i.e.
    the author speaks of “enemies” etc….referring to people with an alternative viewpoint. These people are not “enemies”….it starts to sound a little paranoid. In order for Israel to be a thriving Democracy, it has to blend with other people to be the best version of itself. A thriving Jewish state with people who are respected and respect others…that’s the ultimate survival.
    I still hope.

  • Ze'ev says

    Dr. Gordis, you are the only columnist whose ideas prompt me to respond. It’s probably because, I do, generally, agree with your opinions/ideas, but not quite.

    So, for what’s it worth here are my thoughts about the two paragraphs in your column.

    You are of course correct, generally speaking no country at war can maintain the same freedoms as those countries that are not facing an existential threat. However, what needs to be defined more specifically is the definition of “existential threat” and “freedoms”.
    I think that we can both agree that the Arabs living in Israel do not pose an “existential threat”, although some of them may be security risks. I think that the same holds true for the Israeli Bedouins and the Israeli Druze. But, as you are very well aware, and as the American Jews are becoming increasingly aware (I am not writing here about the American Orthodox community but rather about the much larger Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist communities) these Israeli communities have been denied the same level of institutional support as has the Jewish population. And, yes, I agree that when resources are low one must first care for ones “family”. But, the degree of neglect by the government of these communities is not correlated with to the available resources, it is as a result of those communities being the “Other”, and that, in my mind, diminishes from Democracy as it is currently practiced in Israel. And that diminishing will be increasingly more difficult to explain.

    Your argument, that Israel can not allow itself to put in place democratic the kind of democratic norms, that are common in Western Democracies, because Israel is in a state of war, should be qualified by the following realities that are specific to the State of Israel:

    A relatively small, but increasingly influential, segment of the Jewish community in Israel is not supportive of democracy as a desirable form of government. Many in Israel’s religious Jewish community would prefer a theocratic form of government and many in the Russian community would not shed a tear if democracy was replaced by an autocracy, as long as they would be on the “inside”.

    But, the more significant internal impediment to Israel’s ability to adopt a more democratic governance apparatus, especially in the West Bank, is the state’s implementation of foreign and domestic policies that are based on either messianism or romanticism, and that, my friend, to phrase it colloquially, is nuts!

    So you see I agree with you that Israel could not possibly put in place democratic norms of the kind that some American Jews would like it to. But, in the service of “transparency” you should also explain that some of the reasons that it can not do more to increase democracy within its domain is not due to existential threats, but rather is as a result of internal constraints that the state itself often perpetuates or turns a blind eye to.

  • Stephen G says

    Look put 2 Jews in a room and you’ll wind up with 3 opinions-no group attacks us and defends us worse than we do ourselves.
    However if the Arab world really seriously wishes to wipe out Israel there’s only one solution-give every Israeli a car and make them all drive one day. Life’s lost and fatalities would be more than the nation could afford.

  • Saul Friedman says

    Ms. Gordis:

    You cannot be a man of God nd endless war at the same time. You cannot be a man of God and ignore the apartheid wall; you cannot engage in the favorite ploy of preachers–the straw men–I won’t let you. You give us no alternative to Jeish repressio and apartheid. How dare you say that American Jewry cannot survive if Israel, as it now exists, doesn’t. It did for 200 years. America is a safer place for Jews than Israel. Indeed, so is Egypt and Jordan. Return to the dream of the founders–one Israel Jews and Arbs. The rest is endless war and the demise of what Jews and you are supposed to stand for–“Justice, Justice shall ye pursue.”

  • Sherry says

    Whew! A little shocking comment that I didn’t expect from Saul Friedman.

    Everyone is certainly entitled to their views.


  • Howard Stevens says

    “The problem is not that the NIF and the organizations that it (and the EU) fund support democracy, the problem is that those organizations support the destruction of Israel and potentially, another genocide.”

    These, and other like views, are the destroyers from within.

    Baseless hatred and intolerance of different opinions have harmed Israel before. Folks like the one who uttered the shameful quote are ripping down the sukkah of David as we speak.

  • Okey says

    JPatrick, I’m sure that you intended to address your appeal to the Arabs since that would have been appropriate.

  • Okey says

    Howard Stevens, there was no “1947 pact.”
    Presumably you are referring to the UN GEN. Assembly’s RECOMMENDATION for partition of Western ‘Palestine’ into “a Jewish state” and “an Arab state” [exact quotes.]
    The Arabs to this day REJECT this. Yet people like you pretend that it’s all Israel’s fault.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *