Libby Davies - forced to apologize - anti-Israel

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
E.Tamaran
Libby Davies - forced to apologize - anti-Israel

By Mike De Souza

OTTAWA - New Democratic Party deputy leader Libby Davies is in hot water in her own caucus over controversial comments she made this month at an anti-Israeli protest when she appeared to question the Jewish state's right to exist, while also suggesting that she believes it should face a boycott and sanctions.

The remarks, made in Vancouver and captured on the above video, which is circulating rapidly on the Internet, have provoked an angry backlash among members of the NDP caucus, including Leader Jack Layton - who quickly distanced himself from Ms. Davies. "I have spoken to the [Israeli] ambassador [to Canada], to indicate very clearly that those comments were not the position of our party and Ms. Davies has sent a letter indicating that she made a very serious mistake," Mr. Layton said. "I told her it was a serious mistake."

The video shows Ms. Davies answering a series of questions about the situation in the Middle East, starting with comments suggesting that Israel has been occupying territories since 1948, which is the year of its independence.

"[The occupation started in] '48. It's the longest occupation in the world," she said in the video. "People are suffering. I've been to the West Bank and Gaza twice, so I see what's going on."

Ms. Davies also expressed her personal support for an international campaign for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, breaking ranks with her party's official position.

Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's other deputy leader, said he found the video online last week and "was very quick to point it out" to some of his colleagues to clarify the party's support of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

"No member of our caucus, whatever other title they have, is allowed to invent their own policy," said Mr. Mulcair. "We take decisions together, parties formulate policies together, and to say that you're personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I'm concerned, grossly unacceptable."

In a letter to the Ottawa Citizen that published an editorial last week criticizing Ms. Davies' comments, the Vancouver-area MP apologized for causing "confusion."

"My reference to the year 1948 as the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was a serious and completely inadvertent error," she said in the letter, which was also posted on her personal website at libbydavies.ca.

"I have always supported a two-state solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have never questioned Israel's right to exist and the Palestinian's right to a viable state ... I reject the allegation that I hate Israel, and I reject the assertion that I said that Israel is illegitimate or an abomination. Neither are true."

But Mr. Mulcair said that Ms. Davies, who could not immediately be reached for comment, should also apologize and retract her comments supporting a boycott. He said it is particularly "egregious" since she is a deputy leader of the party.

"As much as it's difficult, if any individual member of Parliament goes off-script on any issue of policy that is well-defined by the party, it would be a problem," said Mr. Mulcair. "But that problem is of course compounded in the case of someone who putatively, with the title that she holds, would give more weight to these views that are not the views of the party."

Steve McDonald, a spokesman for the Canada-Israel Committee, a non-profit group that focuses on raising awareness about relations between the two countries, said he was skeptical about whether it was an inadvertent error by Ms. Davies - and noted she didn't apologize for supporting the boycott campaign.

"She is a senior parliamentarian in that party. She's obviously concerned or passionate about that issue," said Mr. McDonald. "I don't think someone in that position can hide behind a defence of confusion in this case. Especially when we're talking about something as fundamental as referring to 1948 as when the occupation began."

But Mr. McDonald added that Mr. Mulcair was not the only one upset about Ms. Davies' comments, explaining that the committee's government relations representative, former Bloc Quebecois MP Richard Marceau, has spoken to "a number of caucus members who thought the video was disgusting."

"It's particularly disturbing to see a parliamentarian, who does claim to be educated on the issue, come out and say something that is so far outside the Canadian mainstream," said Mr. McDonald. "It's so far beyond Canada's historical position. It's so far beyond the international consensus of the two-state solution which we all support at this point. These are the types of comments that hurt the two-state solution."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utXDAha_vGg&feature=player_embedded

 

 

Issues Pages: 
Papal Bull

So, a small opposition party in Canada can put into jeopardy the two-state solution and over rule the entire international community? Interesting.

Chester Drawers

Some one who makes these types of comments often is speaking their true feelings no matter what apology they give.  Doesn't matter what political stripe, every party has diverse members that often speak non-party mantra.  I do commend the leadership for their response, however because of the racist flavor of this, she should resign as deputy leader.  To bad, she is often one of the most honest speakers when she is not being partisan.

Stargazer

I can't watch the video but let me get this straight - Libby Davies is getting chastised by Jack Layton for saying she supports boycotting Israel while Cheri DiNovo gets no talking to at all for her unquestioning support of Israel?

Chester Drawers, are you saying that Libby Davies wishes to see Israel disappear? Did she say those exact words?

Papal Bull

Chester Drawers wrote:
racist flavor of this

 

How so?

 

 

Unionist

Could I kindly ask you folks to not engage Chester in this discussion? This is a very serious development which progressive people should mull over. We don't need to start right off by dealing with his kind of stuff.

I'm surprised I heard nothing about this since it originally happened. Did anyone else?

More importantly - how do we defend Libby Davies against this McCarthyism before they get rid of one of the few people of conscience left in that caucus?

 

skdadl

E. Tamaran, do you have a link for the full text of your OP? Thanks very much.

Stargazer, it's a shame you couldn't watch the YouTube because Libby is very reasonable in that conversation. She's arguing more for public space to debate the idea of BDS, and at one point she becomes uncomfortable being pressed on the issue.

This comment made me laugh:

Quote:
"It's particularly disturbing to see a parliamentarian, who does claim to be educated on the issue, come out and say something that is so far outside the Canadian mainstream," said Mr. McDonald. "It's so far beyond Canada's historical position.

Since when does any basically decent and intelligent citizen worry about being "mainstream"? You cannot be a moral being while tailoring your morals to the "mainstream" at the same time -- it just cannot be done. And Canada's "historical position" on Israel/Palestine has certainly been shuggled by the Harper government, very much to the right, although again, that shouldn't be what determines the views of responsible citizens now.

I'm shocked by Mulcair's attack and Layton's flaccid acquiescence in it. I'm a member of the NDP -- both the feds and the ONDP get monthly donations from me. Great gawd ... how many times over the last forty-plus years have I had to retract that commitment for a time?

 

remind remind's picture

Hopefully Muclair loses his seat, and I will be writing a letter to the NDP and Jack Layton over this BS.

 

In fact I will be visualizing  the Liberals getting Muclair's seat......fucker.

Unionist

Remind, let me know when you realize that this is Layton and the whole party leadership doing this. Mulcair just happens to be one of the many unabashed supporters of Israel in that caucus. You think this is Mulcair's doing? As I said, let me know when reality hits, then we can talk.

About Libby.

And Mable Elmore.

And Cheri DiNovo.

And Pat Martin and Judy Wasylicia-Leis (or whoever replaces her now) on the CPCCA.

Starting to see a pattern?

 

Michelle

I don't see anything wrong with anything she said.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Unionist wrote:

More importantly - how do we defend Libby Davies against this McCarthyism before they get rid of one of the few people of conscience left in that caucus?

..yes, how can we defend her? something beyond the usual emails maybe.

remind remind's picture

Muclair started it and has been the driving force. POS that he has shown himself to be.

Unionist

No kidding, Michelle. I didn't see anything wrong with what Mable Elmore said either. In fact, I didn't see anything wrong with what Leslie Hughes said, for that matter. Not even Helen Thomas!

But you and I aren't worthy to judge those things. We're not in Stephen Harper's "Israel's best friend in the world" camp. And we're not spineless cowards. So we're disqualified from the judging.

 

-=+=-

double post

-=+=-

double post

-=+=-

I know Mulcair is the big NPD hope in Quebec, but who is he to lecture Libby Davies?  And Davies can't give her personal opinion on Israel, but it's okay for Mulcair to say that policies like a boycott are "as far as I'm concerned, grossly unacceptable"?  Hypocrisy, thy name is Mulcair.  Very, very, very disappointed.  The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I will keep voting NDP, but only because my MP is Davies.

(And if this is what we get with a Liberal merger/coalition -- the right side of the party bad-mouthing the left, who must remain silent, in the press -- no thank you).

Layton's response, on the other hand, is disappointing, but acceptable.  He calls it a "serious mistake" -- which technically it is in relation to the party's official position.  An adequate response that doesn't get personal like Mulcair's does.

As for Mr. Macdonald of the Canada-Israel Committee:  the two-state solution is already dead, it doesn't need Libby Davies to hasten its demise.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Well I could watch the video (terrible sound quality mind you) and Libby went to quite great lengths to qualify her remarks as personal, was concerned that it be understood that she was anti-occupation and then went on to point out that the current political climate in Canada was stifling debate because anyone who was anti-occupation was opening themselves up to acccusations of being anti-semitic or anti-Israeli (and we know how often those two are conflated). As to the weird question about 1948/1967... it was kind of obvious to me that it was convoluted and intentionally a "gotcha" question - had I been asked, I would have asserted 1948 somewhat strenuously and would say that Israel has been in violation of U.N. resolution 181 since the very beginning of its existence as a state.

Michelle

She did the right thing - she spoke honestly and with compassion about a situation where there is a very clear aggressor and oppressed.  God forbid anyone else in the caucus should do something like that, huh?

Unionist

When I wrote to Mulcair (my soon-to-be-ex-MP) and asked him to urge the NDP to leave the CPCCA - he never replied. I had several discussions with two BQ MPs who maintain particularly close relations with our union. I couldn't find anyone in the NDP to discuss the matter with, unfortunately. I'm glad to say the Bloc was a lot more open to those discussions, and they finally did the right thing (though they're still nervous about it because of the power of the Israel lobby).

Anyway, I'm obviously done with Mulcair. I knew about his pro-Israel sympathies right from day one, and expressed my hesitations about him on that basis here on babble. But I was prepared to ignore that and support him for lots of other reasons. We can't dictate people's opinions on a host of matters. But when he decided to become a filthy little stoolpigeon dictating to better people than he will ever be, it's no longer a matter of opinions. It's a matter of which side are you on. He's on the wrong side of history.

As for Layton, he has a simple choice - and unfortunately it appears he has already made it. Next step will be dumping Libby as deputy leader.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Libby is very clearly trying to open up some space for debate within the NDP and within Parliament on the Palestine issue.

And then of course we see the "National (Israel can do no wrong) Post" leading the McCarthyite witchhunt against her.

The problem is that the NDP has a completely wimpy position on Palestine...not much better than the other parties.   And the NDP's response to the massacre on the Mediterranean was totally pathetic. 

The NDP seldom leads on controversial issues.   Instead it has to be pushed kicking and screaming by activist movements.

 

Unionist

This is shades of 2002. Alexa McDonough fired Svend Robinson from his foreign affairs critic role after he tried to visit Arafat in his confinement and criticized the Israeli government.

Too many similarities for comfort.

I wouldn't mind the NDP not leading, if they just didn't suppress people of conscience.

 

skdadl

Does the OP come from the Notional Pest?

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

The response of Layton was as despicable as that of Muclair.

This is truly disheartening. If the NDP is far too cowardly to stand with the children of Gaza and against the racist ideological equivalent of the mouse that roared, why should anyone believe the NDP would stand with workers and people against truly powerful corporate and industrial forces when it comes to labour, environment, rights, and the economy?

They are just another Liberal party standing for nothing but bending for every slight breeze.

ETA: I too will be sending a message but I'm certain I will vomit at the smarmy form email I will get in reply.

Unionist

skdadl wrote:

Does the OP come from the Notional Pest?

Canwest. It's on the Montreal Gazette website too. [url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/deputy+leader+faces+angry+backlash+o...

remind remind's picture

Personally, I think 'the NDP' is those in the activist movements, where the "leaders" go wrong is thinking they are the NDP, once they are elected.

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

For God sakes.

Fidel

I don't think the NDP leaders are cowardly at all. This is colder war stuff. And I think it's cowardly to ignore this fact. And what was the cold war part one all about? It was a lot of bullshit. I don't blame the NDP for not wanting to step in the bullshit in another one of Uncle Sam's front line states.

If the two dirty old line parties can avoid discussing social democracy and democracy in general here at home, then why should the NDP take on our vicious toadies over what's happening thousands of miles away on the other side of the planet? N-no, let's attack our vicious toadies where they are weak, which is right here at home where it counts for most Canadians.

Fidel

You just don't like the way the NDP is forced to play old line party politicking around an obsolete electoral system, we can tell.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I haven't been following this because I've been so busy, but wanted to chime in with my support for Libby.

Unionist

Excuse me while I go take a shower.

skdadl

Actually, Fidel, parts of the CCF/NDP (not Tommy, but Lewis Sr) have quite the Cold Warrior history, maybe not McCarthyite but tippy-toeing in that direction, partly for practical reasons. Sorry: this is drift, but I think we should keep our history careful.

Kaspar Hauser

I've written to Layton expressing my support for Libby, for all the good it will do.  I'm really beginning to feel ethical revulsion towards the NDP and towards their apologists on this matter.

Life, the unive...

I have to think there is a little bit of really unsettling politics going on here too.  Muclair's over the top attack on Davies seems like the first shot in the leadership campaign to come at some undetermined point down the road.  The comments are pretty low.

I don't really have a problem with Layton's comments.  It was a mistake, if an inadvertant one, and Davies has taken the needed steps towards rectifying that.  I know those who don't like the NDP will use this in their typical line of attack, but both Layton AND Davies seem to have BOTH realized that Davies made a mistake in how she framed her answer to one question.   Seems to me that they worked together to fix it.  I doubt we will see any reduction of Davies' role in caucus.  (I hope I am not wrong on that)

As for calling for a boycott and so on, Davies speaks for a lot of NDP activists and NDP non-member voters like me on that issue, and if anyone is out of step with NDP membership it is Muclair.

edmundoconnor

Is it possible to change the thread title? As someone who has their name mis-spelt on a regular basis, I have a particular interest.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Michael Nenonen wrote:

I've written to Layton expressing my support for Libby, for all the good it will do.  I'm really beginning to feel ethical revulsion towards the NDP and towards their apologists on this matter.

You're not alone.

Life, the unive...

For what it is worth, I just watched the National report on the Afghan document issue- and there was Davies sitting right in the frame with Layton.  Certainly no attempt to hide her.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I have to think there is a little bit of really unsettling politics going on here too.  Muclair's over the top attack on Davies seems like the first shot in the leadership campaign to come at some undetermined point down the road.  The comments are pretty low.

I don't really have a problem with Layton's comments.  It was a mistake, if an inadvertant one, and Davies has taken the needed steps towards rectifying that.  I know those who don't like the NDP will use this in their typical line of attack, but both Layton AND Davies seem to have BOTH realized that Davies made a mistake in how she framed her answer to one question.   Seems to me that they worked together to fix it.  I doubt we will see any reduction of Davies' role in caucus.  (I hope I am not wrong on that)

As for calling for a boycott and so on, Davies speaks for a lot of NDP activists and NDP non-member voters like me on that issue, and if anyone is out of step with NDP membership it is Muclair.

Hmmmm ....

Quote:

Leader Jack Layton - who quickly distanced himself from Ms. Davies. "I have spoken to the [Israeli] ambassador [to Canada], to indicate very clearly that those comments were not the position of our party and Ms. Davies has sent a letter indicating that she made a very serious mistake," Mr. Layton said. "I told her it was a serious mistake."

Do you think Jack told the Israeli ambassador murdering nine people on the high seas "was a very serious mistake". What about starving 1.5 million Palestinians? Is that a serious mistake to Jack warranting a discussion with the Israeli ambassador? Or does he only do that when apologizing for one of his MPs straying from the party line of sycophantic loyalty to the adherents of a racist ideology?

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Thanks for that Fidel. I didn't think my opinion of Layton et al after this moment could sink any lower. I predict one day the missing NDP spine will be represented by you and Stockholm as everyone with a conscience and a sense of dignity will have moved on. Layton is a coward but he is your coward, eh?

-=+=-

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

...Muclair's over the top attack on Davies seems like the first shot in the leadership campaign to come at some undetermined point down the road...

Perhaps leadership of the merged "Liberal Democrats"?

JKR

Who interviewed Libby in this video?

That garbled question about 1948 or 1967 was clearly asked in a way to confuse and get a "gotcha-moment" on video.

It looks like a premeditated setup to hurt the NDP. Reminds me of Republican tactics used in the US to destroy ACORN.

In any case. Libby's response that she agrees with the NDP's policy on Israel/Palestine that supports a two-state solution should end this controversy.

And behind closed doors, Muclair should be told to be a better team player.

What was Muclair thinking?

Fidel

skdadl wrote:

Actually, Fidel, parts of the CCF/NDP (not Tommy, but Lewis Sr) have quite the Cold Warrior history, maybe not McCarthyite but tippy-toeing in that direction, partly for practical reasons. Sorry: this is drift, but I think we should keep our history careful.

I am well aware of David Lewis and the good fight then. That was cold war baloney then imo, and the NDP doesn't need to get involved by taking sides now anymore than they didn't need to at that time.

For example: Some people on this planet believe that Canada is involved in a real war on Uncle Sam's behalf in Afghanistan. Let's not even discuss why our vicious toadies are sniveling and groveling to Uncle Sam's agenda the way they have this past decade. As far as some are concerned, it's a real war, and Uncle Sam is going to be forced out of Central Asia by a rag-tag group of good doobie rebels led by some real good guys at the top. Some day. It's only been 30 years since Uncle Sam stuck his nose in Afghanistan. Here's his coat what's his hurry?

But this thing in Israel - this is surreal for them. This isn't Uncle Sam propping up another client state, the same one they have since the cold war started. Not according to them. No, this is the NDP's fault! If only Jack Layton would intervene on behalf of Palestinians, the way the Russians have, I can only suppose, then there would be nothing else to worry about. It would mean one less colder war front, I mean, Israeli hawks would realize the err of their ways with the leader of the fourth political party in Ottawa standing up to them in such a way.

Pull the other one - it's got bells on. Some of us like quoting Noam Chomsky. What does he say about standing up to Israel as opposed to opposing the crimes of the US state wrt Israel and dozens of like client states? What does Noam have to say about why Canada is in Afghanistan? Noam would say to forget about Israel for the time being, and concentrate on exposing and opposing the root source of the problem. And Noam said that Canada is not in Afghanistan because of 9/11. Our vicious toadying in the Stan has nothing to do with 9/11 or fighting terrorism at all.

Fidel

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Thanks for that Fidel. I didn't think my opinion of Layton et al after this moment could sink any lower. I predict one day the missing NDP spine will be represented by you and Stockholm as everyone with a conscience and a sense of dignity will have moved on. Layton is a coward but he is your coward, eh?

Yeah it's not the spineless government and phony opposition who are spineless for their vicious toadying to Uncle Sam at every turn and twice on Sundays.

It's the NDP and the evol mini-me!

You make perfect sense, like all'a time. You'd make a real good fptp campaign strategist. You're already at their level.

Stockholm

I watched the whole 5 minute interviews with Libby Davies and quite frankly, I agreed with virtually everything she said EXCEPT for her initial comment about the "'occupation' starting in 1948". I realize that is a debatable point in some activist and academic circles - but whether you like it or not - if you say the occupation began in 1948 and then that you oppose the occupation - then it makes it easy for people to claim that you are essentially rejecting "Israel's right to exist" and that opens a whole unnecessary can of worms and makes it easy for people to discredit all the other valid things you have said.

I agree that there is a double standard. Many of the more fanatical pro-Israel types never acknowledge Palestine's right to exist - but they scream bloody murder if they anyone seems to question Israel's - and its rare (if ever) that anyone gets carpetted for questioning Palestine's right to exist. But that is a battle for another day.

Whether we like it or not, if you want to criticise the occupation etc... you have to walk on eggshells and choose your words very, very carefully - precisely because if you say the wrong thing you will lose all credibility and end up in the doghouse alongside Helen Thomas etc...

Libby did the right thing by reiterating her support for Israel's existence and apologizing for her choice of words and that should be the end of the story. I hope that she continues to try to create space for more open debate about the Middle East etc... and that in the future she doesn't make another slip of the tongue that only plays into the hands of her enemies.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Maybe you missed the opening post, Fidel. It is the NDP we are speaking of. No one in the opposition forced anyone in the NDP, much less Layton, to attack a stalwart NDP parliamentarian for speaking the truth while kow-towing to the ambassador of a nation that was founded on dispossessing and brutalizing its indigenous population while denying them not only basic human rights but the basics of life. Layton did that all on his own. Shamefully. I appreciate for you there is no legitimate criticism of the NDP, so maybe in the bossom of Israeli apologists is where you really belong. Goodnight.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

edmundoconnor wrote:

Is it possible to change the thread title? As someone who has their name mis-spelt on a regular basis, I have a particular interest.

I hear you, edmund. Oh how I hear you. The thread title's been changed.

For the record, Libby rocks, and I will be writing to Jack to express my support of Ms. Davies.

Fidel

Frustrated Mess wrote:
Layton did that all on his own. Shamefully.

What has Layton done? And when will there be a House vote on it? What's at stake here? Does this mean putting an end to Ottawa's vicious toadying to Uncle Sam and his client state of Israel by our two dirty old line parties in coalition government?

Life, the unive...

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I know those who don't like the NDP will use this in their typical line of attack, but both Layton AND Davies seem to have BOTH realized that Davies made a mistake in how she framed her answer to one question.

 

 

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Maybe you missed the opening post, Fidel. It is the NDP we are speaking of. No one in the opposition forced anyone in the NDP, much less Layton, to attack a stalwart NDP parliamentarian for speaking the truth while kow-towing to the ambassador of a nation that was founded on dispossessing and brutalizing its indigenous population while denying them not only basic human rights but the basics of life. Layton did that all on his own. Shamefully. I appreciate for you there is no legitimate criticism of the NDP, so maybe in the bossom of Israeli apologists is where you really belong. Goodnight.

 

Well thanks for proving my point. Layton did not attack Davies, he said she made a serious mistake. Davies herself has acknowledged that. End of story on that front unless there is some kind of punative action, which given the news shot tonight of them together there sure seems like there isn't going to be any. Please try and get you facts straight.
Lots of reasons to attack Muclair and his behaviour, or talk about the unfair way these issues get framed by the media, but Layton most decidedly did not attack Davies.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hey Fidel, just a friendly piece of advice, mod hat off. I don't think this thread will be helped by your defense of the federal NDP in this case. Jack could have chosen the brave route, taking the minority opinion among party leaders in Canada. He could have done this a while ago on this issue, and at numerous points up to now, and he could have defended Ms. Davies and her right to speak her comments as she indicated they were her personal positions.

He did not. 

I'm ashamed of him, someone I've met numerous times and who I supported as leader and respected, for a while.

I will always vote for the NDP, as there are no alternatives that I can conscientiously vote for, but I'm deeply disappointed in this, and give a standing ovation to Libby Davies who probably knew the party machine wouldn't back her up, but said her conscience as a committed anti-oppression MP. We have so few.

Bravo Libby.

6079_Smith_W

 

@ Life, the universe, everything

Actually there isn't much in politics that ISN'T unsettling if you look at it, and I would expect that our minority parliament and the possibility of an election made the NDP even more freaked out by Davies' comments than they were over Robinson in 2002.

I agree the NDP are backing down from an important political stand, one that might even help them since Israel may actually become a liability for Harper (even if Davies made an unfortunate choice of dates). There isn't a political party in existence that doesn't pick and choose issues in the interest of gaining and keeping power. Doesn't make it right, but it is how it is.

Believe me, living in a province where past NDP government and even some in labour have supported the nuclear industry, and our current Sask Party was smart enough to realize it would be the kiss of death if they supported it right now, parties sometimes do what they think will get them power - not what they or their support base actually want.

Fidel

It's obvious that some of us very concerned about the state of affairs in the Middle East. That much is for sure.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Libby Davies wrote:
""[The occupation started in] '48. It's the longest occupation in the world," she said in the video."

I'm confused about what the mistake is with Libby's comment.  It's correct isn't it? E.g. see The Origins of the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Settler-Colonialism, Apartheid and Political Zionism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

Excerpt:

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote:
As a result, by 1949 the Zionists had successfully driven out approximately 770,000 Palestinians who thus became refugees in their own country, and taken control of 80 per cent of their land. Only 100,000 remained of a population approaching one million.

Pages

Topic locked