Exposing a Zionist Liar Attempting to Challenge My Book “Exposing a Zionist Hoax”

Zionists pile lie upon lie to sustain their defenses of Israel's egregious crimes against the Palestinian people. Don't they get that truth will prevail?

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Collection of Essays by Jeremy R. Hammond

Get a Free e-Book on Palestine

Subscribe to my newsletter and get my e-book The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Collection of Essays.

Last month, a new book was published titled What Justice Demands: America and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Elan Journo. It is a work of propaganda that I thoroughly debunked in my e-book response, published the same day, Exposing a Zionist Hoax: How Elan Journo’s “What Justice Demands” Deceives Readers about the Palestine Conflict.

A blogger named Sheri Oz has published a post claiming that my own book is the hoax. Yet to support her attack on my work, she does what Journo does and simply lies. The fact is that she fails to identify even a single factual or logical error in Exposing a Zionist Hoax.

It Doesn’t Take a “Mind-Reader”!

Her first complaint against me is that I write in the book:

Demonstrably, Journo’s aim is not to clarify, but to obfuscate the conflict’s essential nature, and to muddy its moral significance. Nay, his aim is not merely to obfuscate, but to systematically deceive his readers about the causes of the conflict, the reasons for its persistence, and the requirements of a just peace. Taking justice seriously, we find that the facts tell a very different story from the fictional narrative Journo presents.

To her, this represents me attempting to be a “Mind-Reader”. Yet no mind-reading is required to ascertain Journo’s intent. The key word there is “Demonstrably”! That it was Journo’s intent to deceive his readers is evident from the demonstrably willful deceptions contained throughout the book, as my book Exposing a Zionist Hoax demonstrates at length.

That’s not to say that Journo doesn’t believe most or even all of his own propaganda. But, then, if we assume this to be the case, it is due to his demonstrably willful ignorance of the facts.

How many factual or logical errors on my part has she identified so far? Zero!

Dismissing Source Materials

Oz next complains that I cite sources that are not peer-reviewed or primary source materials, which, she asserts, means that the information I provide cannot be trusted. Of course, this is a non sequitur fallacy. She dismisses anything I write for which I provide a source like the New York Time or the Israeli daily Haaretz, but it does not follow from the fact that these are neither peer-reviewed academic journals nor primary source materials that therefore we may glean no truth from them.

And, of course, I also cite peer-reviewed and primary source materials.

Furthermore, it is equally true that Elan Journo, the author of the hoax Oz is trying to defend, cites sources that are not peer-reviewed or primary source materials! By Oz’s logic, that means we cannot trust what Journo writes in his book!

Oz further complains that I cite previous works of my own. The reason for that is simple: each of those previous works provides extensive documentation to support what I wrote in Exposing a Zionist Hoax. No need to repeat the work I’ve already done! Oz simply dismisses any arguments I make for which I do not cite a peer-reviewed or primary source, regardless of what the documented facts actually are.

How many factual or logical errors on my part has Oz identified so far? Zero!

Lying About the Peel Commission Report

Her next attack on my book is the only one that has even an appearance of identifying a factual error on my part. She notes that I do cite primary source materials, but the thing I wrote that she next takes issue with is this:

The truth is that, naturally, during the Mandate period, when the British controlled the formerly Ottoman territory of Palestine, both Arab and Jewish inhabitants were called “Palestinians”.

She doesn’t provide the context for that statement, which is how Elan Journo denies that the Palestinians had a discernible self-identity, culture, and history until fairly recently — he even denies that they were known as “Palestinians” until the 1960s!

That is an absurd lie, of course, as I demonstrate. Here’s how Oz continues her attack on my book:

His footnote shows this is supported by the Peel Commission Report. The real truth is that, in the entire document neither Arabs nor Jews are called “Palestinians”. There is not even one instance in which the term “Palestinian” appears in the text. Jews and Arabs are simply referred to as Jews or Arabs living in Palestine. What do you conclude when someone prefaces a statement with ”the truth is” and then writes something that anyone who wants to make the effort to check up on it can see it is not true at all?

Oz’s claim that the word “Palestinian” does not even appear in the text of the Peel Commission report is a lie. Its a rather curious lie, given the fact that I even cite a page number for her. On page 43, the commission referred to “Palestinians, Arab and Jew”!

That single reference suffices to prove that what I wrote is true: that during the Mandate, both Arabs and Jews were referred to as “Palestinians”. There are, of course, other proofs of this in the Peel Commission report:

  • Page 5: the report refers to “Arab men of learning” as “Palestinians”.
  • Page 22: refers in the same sentence to the “Arabs of Palestine” as “Palestinians”.
  • Page 35: the report cites the Palestine Mandate, which spoke of “Palestinian citizenship”.
  • Page 39: the report notes how Article 7 of the Mandate “provides for a Palestinian citizenship common to Arabs and Jews”.
  • Page 43: in addition to the above noted reference to “Palestinians, Arab and Jew”, also refers to “the Arabs, who constituted the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people”.
  • Page 54: the report refers again to “Palestinians, Arab and Jew.”
  • Page 55: refers to “Arabs and Jews” sharing “a common Palestinian citizenship.”
  • Page 56: explains how the Arabs “refused to co-operate in any form of government other than a national government responsible to the Palestinian people.”
  • Page 59: refers to “The sympathy of the Palestinian Arabs with their kinsmen in Syria…” and notes how the Syrian Congress “included Palestinians”.
  • Page 60: refers to “the Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 61: refers again to “the Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 82: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 94: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 104: speaks of “an open rebellion of Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 116: refers to “Palestinian Jews”.
  • Page 119: speaks of the idea “that Arabs and Jews are members of one Palestinian society.”
  • Page 126: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 135: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 138: again refers to both Arabs and Jews as “Palestinians” with varying allegiances.
  • Page 153: refers to “Palestinian subjects” under the Ottoman Empire.
  • Page 158 speaks of “Palestinians possessing the necessary qualities” to participate administrative duties.
  • On page 159, we see district officials being referred to as “Palestinians” and “Palestinian”.

That brings us nearly halfway through the report. There’s no need to present an exhaustive list. You get the point. Look again at what I wrote that Oz is attempting to challenge:

The truth is that, naturally, during the Mandate period, when the British controlled the formerly Ottoman territory of Palestine, both Arab and Jewish inhabitants were called “Palestinians”.

I have just proven to you that this is a true statement. Now look again at what Oz states in order to support her argument that my book Exposing a Zionist Hoax is itself a hoax:

The real truth is that, in the entire document neither Arabs nor Jews are called “Palestinians”. There is not even one instance in which the term “Palestinian” appears in the text.

I have just proven to you that these statements of hers are lies. Her rhetorical question that follows, about how silly it is to lie when anyone can easily check the source, is certainly ironic!

Here’s a link to the Peel Commission Report so you can verify for yourself that I’m telling the truth and Oz is lying.

You have page numbers!

Obfuscating My Purpose in Citing the Shaw Commission Report

The next statement of mine from Exposing a Zionist Hoax that Oz attempts to challenge followed immediately after the one about how, contrary to what Journo claims in his hoax, both Jews and Arabs were known as “Palestinians”. Here is what I wrote next, with Oz’s bold emphasis:

And, of course, the Arab Palestinians had a very strong sense of nationalism dating back to the earliest origins of the conflict. One of their main objections to the League of Nations Mandate forced upon them after World War I was the fact that the British occupation regime was forcibly preventing them from exercising their right to self-determination despite Britain having promised the Arabs that if they supported the war effort against the Ottoman Empire, their reward would be independence. As the British Shaw Commission of 1929 observed, “active recruiting was carried on in Palestine for the Sherifian Army, our allies, the recruits being given to understand that they were fighting in a national cause and to liberate their country from the Turks.

So how does Oz attempt to rebut these observations? She writes, “Yet, on page 6, the Shaw Report itself says the following…”

The “Yet” is intended to indicate that the excerpt from the Shaw Commission report she is about to quote somehow shows that what I wrote is false. Yet it does not! Here is the quote she provides from the report, with her bold emphasis:

Viewed in the light of the history of at least the last six centuries, Palestine is an artificial conception. Under the Ottoman regime it formed part only of an administrative unit, the remainder of which consisted of areas now coming within the jurisdiction of the Governments of other neighbouring mandated territories. Its frontiers, too, are largely artificial. In many parts they are frequented by nomad tribes who by intergovernmental agreement are allowed unhindered passage across these frontiers for the purpose of exercising rights of grazing which they have acquired by long usage. In Turkish times the members of all these tribes were Ottoman subjects; today some are technically of Palestinian, some of Trans-Jordanian, and some of Syrian nationality, but it is at least doubtful whether they themselves recognize distinctions of this character.

Does the Shaw Commission’s observation that Palestine was “an artificial conception” belie my statement that “the Arab Palestinians had a very strong sense of nationalism dating back to the earliest origins of the conflict”? No, it does not!

Furthermore, notice what Oz does not emphasize with bold text: “In Turkish times the members of all these tribes were Ottoman subjects; today some are technically of Palestinian, some of Trans-Jordanian, and some of Syrian nationality…”

There you see again more proof — provided by Oz herself — that her denial that the Arabs were known during the Mandate as “Palestinian” is untenable! Right there in front of her is another proof from another British report dating to the Mandate era showing that what I wrote is true!

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

So how does she attempt to use the above quote from the Shaw Commission to disprove what I wrote? She accuses me of having cherry-picked from the report. I quoted the report showing that Palestinians joined the British war effort against the Ottomans, but “left out” how the report in the same place goes on to say (her bold emphasis):

These men, it is believed, actually took part in the offensive against the Turk. The tendency of the evidence is to show that in spite of the fact that nothing had been said about Palestine being included in the Hedjaz Empire and the fact that the Balfour Declaration had been published in 1917, the real impression left upon the Arabs generally was that the British were going to set up an independent Arab State which would include Palestine.

Oz then argues:

“Which would include Palestine” and not an independent state of Palestine.

From all of this we can understand that the Arabs never saw themselves as Palestinians and they never saw what was referred to as Palestine as a unit separate from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. The Peel Commission Report also makes this claim on page 6. After having helped free the land from the Turks,the Arabs residing in Palestine were upset at the splitting up between Britain and the French of what they had considered indivisible. They were supposed to have been citizens of a Greater Syria. Not a Palestine that had never existed for them as a separate entity.

Yet, once again, nothing here actually belies what I wrote! It remains true that Arab Palestinians joined the war effort in order to obtain their independence from the Ottomans! It remains true that they had a very strong sense of nationalism!

Further demonstrating the truth of what I wrote, I cite both the Peel Commission and Shaw Commission again later in my book (p. 87) as follows:

While Journo would have his readers believe that no Palestinian national movement existed until the 1960s, the Peel Commission remarked how, by 1925, “Te dominant force in the mind of educated [Palestinian] Arabs was the spirit off Arab nationalism.” 

As the Shaw Commission observed, the Arabs maintained “that they were entitled to expect, if not the creation of an independent State, at least the establishment of a representative government in Palestine.”

It’s true that, early on, the Arabs of Palestine viewed themselves as part of the larger region of Syria, but as illustrated in the quote from the Shaw Commission report immediately above, they eventually came to demand that Palestine’s independence be recognized. (The idea of Palestine being part of a greater Syria essentially became moot in 1943, when the independence of Syria and Lebanon was recognized.)

So, in sum, what I wrote remains true — Oz’s attempt to obfuscate that truth notwithstanding.

Conclusion

And that’s it! Those few vain attacks on my book are the best that Oz could do to try to defend Elan Journo’s hoax. To be precise, it is not Journo’s book she is trying to defend (she actually criticizes it in prefacing her attack on my rejoinder), but the standard Zionist propaganda that Journo regurgitates, which Zionists like Oz rely on to try to justify Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.

Specifically, both Journo and Oz are here trying to justify the British and Zionists’ rejection of the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination — which culminated in the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population from their homes in order for the “Jewish state” of Israel to be established.

I, for one, am not going to sit by and watch people like Journo and Oz resort to outright lying in order to defend egregious crimes against humanity!

Are you?

Take a stand against this hypocrisy! Only by understanding the truth about the nature of the conflict can we hope to ever resolve it. Arm yourself with the knowledge to become an effective voice for a just peace.

Exposing a Zionist Hoax: How Elan Journo's "What Justice Demands" Deceives Readers

Get Your Copy of Exposing a Zionist Hoax

The government perpetually lies to the public about important issues. The mainstream media dutifully serve to manufacture consent for criminal policies.

I free people’s minds by exposing state propaganda intended to keep them in servitude to the politically and financially powerful. My writings empower readers with the knowledge to see through the deceptions and fight for a better future, for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

I’m an independent political analyst, journalist, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, and author of several books. I’m also a coach who helps writers communicate their ideas more effectively to make a greater positive impact.

Learn more about my 10-Step Formula for Effective Journalism writing coaching program.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This

Find this informative?

Share the knowledge!