Friday, May 17, 2024

Dr Sheree Trotter: Defrocking Decolonisation’s Priesthood

Shortly after 7 October, a friend phoned for help in understanding her daughter’s social media messages. “What’s decolonisation?”, she asked. Like many Kiwis, my friend was mystified by the younger generation’s sudden and religious passion for a conflict on the other side of the world. What appeared to be “a spontaneous eruption of moral outrage”, turned out to be “a highly orchestrated, well-funded propaganda campaign”, one that had been decades in the making. Recently published research has revealed the degree to which funding connected to Hamas has poured into USA university campuses, fueling antisemitism and contributing to the angry and often violent protests.

It has long been argued that Israel must be defended as the only western-styled democracy in the Middle East. Israel has been seen as the beach-head, standing against medieval forces that would drive the world back to an age of barbarism. Such language is now considered part of the imperialist lexicon that the enlightened must jettison. Hamas, the radical Islamist terrorist organisation that slaughtered the greatest number of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust, in an orgy of sexual violence, blood curdling torture and depravity, is now feted on American university campuses as a valiant force fighting for the liberation of the “oppressed Palestinian people”. Thus, savagery is now defended in the enlightened halls of power and influence and the Gaza war has become the symbol of the Progressive Left’s battle against western civilisation. The ideological war is directed not just at Israel, but the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the western world more generally. Advocating for the preservation of western values is seen as a “Euro-imperialist talking point”. Embracing the Palestinian cause is “acting to dismantle empire”. Indeed, one needs a language guide to decode the rhetoric. Even the word “terrorist” is considered a “racist and politicised” term and defending Israel’s right to exist is interpreted as “white supremacy”.

The West is considered the source of all evil in the current zeitgeist, purveyor of the great sin of colonization and imperialism, in which the world is divided into the white oppressor and brown oppressed. If you happen to be brown but don’t buy into the ideology, behold, you are actually white. The fact that the majority of Israelis are brown is irrelevant. They are still white, according to the dogma. One’s skin colour grants political advantage, but as it turns out, only for those on the Left who are not Jewish.

We have witnessed public intellectuals, here in Aotearoa and elsewhere, calling Hamas’ actions “justified armed resistance”. These sentiments are echoed by activist politicians and students alike, in a frenzy of mindless virtue-signalling. More puzzling is the attempt to marry the Palestinian cause with Indigenous causes. We see this in statements like “centering Te Tiriti in this conversation on Palestine and decolonisation” and the “Liberation of Palestine, in so far as it will wound Western imperialism will open a liberated horizon for all racialized people”.

If these seem somewhat obtuse, Te Pati Māori leader, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s statement is abundantly clear:

“Palestine is the last bastion of resistance against global Western colonisation. If Palestine is not free, neither are we”.

Ngarewa-Packer has evidently bought the false narrative that Palestinians were once a people who had sovereignty over the land of Israel, even though there is no historical evidence to support such a claim. Under Ngarewa-Packer’s reading, and according to her chant, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free”, Palestinians must have sovereignty over the entire land of Israel. The necessary implication is the genocide or displacement of the Jews, and of course, denial of a Jewish right to self-determination in ancestral lands. (One wonders if she intends to apply such a framework to the situation in Aotearoa New Zealand?)

The illegitimate coupling of Māori sovereignty to the Palestinian cause does have a precedent amongst Māori thinkers. It has been cultivated over decades and has become the default position in certain sectors. Donna Awatere’s book, Māori sovereignty (1984), was modelled on the ideas of the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF), a designated terrorist group. According to Laura Kamau’s 2010 thesis,

The point for the PLF was to filter a clear perspective of the enemy to the masses so that they may know the weaknesses and the strengths of their enemy in order for the PLF and the masses that they represent to become stronger. This founding document for the PLF concluded that,

1. Our enemy in the battle is Israel, Zionism, world imperialism and Arab reaction.

Awatere embraced this idea, replacing Israel with Pākehā New Zealand, Zionism with Christianity, world imperialism with Britain and Arab reaction with colonial Maori.

These were the forces Awatere saw as obstructions to the possibility of establishing New Zealand as a Māori Nation State. Awatere’s hostility toward Pākehā New Zealand, Christianity, imperialism and “colonial Māori”, shows obvious similarities to the modern day decolonisers’ attacks on ‘western civilisation’. Ironically, it is western culture, the culture of freedom and enquiry, that enables academics to develop and disseminate views that directly seek to undermine the West, and the very liberties it affords.

Alarmingly, the apologists for Hamas readily turn a blind eye to the extreme fundamentalism of the Hamas regime and its systematic mistreatment and torture of Palestinians critical of the regime. Such is the nature of the “sacred”. The Palestinian cause has become hallowed in the worldview of decolonisation’s priestly class. It is a central tenet in the battle to undermine the foundations of the West, and its values of rationalism, the disinterested pursuit of truth, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights and liberal democracy.

Decolonisation’s binary framework of oppressor and oppressed, colonizer and colonized offers a convenient dogma for devotees, but lacks explanatory power and abuses history in the process. Some of our great Māori leaders readily embraced the best of both worlds in their efforts to advocate for their people. In 1858, Pōtatau was declared king at Ngāruawāhia with an oath that bound him to Queen Victoria, Christianity and the law. He was anointed with a Bible over his head, a practice that has continued with his successors to this day. Leaders like Apirana Ngata worked for reconciliation between Māori and Pākehā. Tahupōtiki Wiremu Ratana held a Bible in one hand and the treaty in the other symbolising his dual mandate and Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu had a love for Israel and welcomed Israeli ambassadors onto the marae.

Māori who aspire to follow in the footsteps of these champions are not “colonized Māori.” They simply reject a construct designed to keep them shackled in grievance, anger and bitterness. Even as they seek redress, they refuse to be defined or confined by the pain of colonisation, discrimination or disadvantage. They follow the example of their tupuna who were entrepreneurs, who embraced modernity and literacy, who chose to turn away from tribal warfare, cannibalism and slavery. They embrace their identity with pride, gratitude and dignity and reject the destructive dogma of the decolonisation priestly class.

Viewing the whole history of Aotearoa through the lens of decolonisation robs us all of the richness of our heritage, one in which there is much to celebrate. While a rigorous scrutiny of the legacy of colonialism is needed, the decolonisation priesthood’s attack on everything the West has given us makes as much sense as the man who destroys the very city in which he prospers.

Dr Sheree Trotter, of Te Arawa iwi, is a writer and researcher published locally and internationally in newspapers and journals, who holds a PhD in history from the University of Auckland. This article was first published HERE


Anonymous said...

Very interesting and maybe very worrying also.

Robert Arthur said...

The person is quite correct in asking what decolonisation means. Some time ago I heard a discussion on RNZ between some maoris who were not front line activists.They clearly had no clear grasp. it means whatever suits. Any practice, law, behavioural convention not known to stone age maori is potential target for rejection as part of declonosation. In modrn society effectively enables to do wahtever you like. Curiously whilst colonialist derived practices and law are optional, pre colonisation practices are not insisted upon; infanticide, plundering the unfortunate, slavery, cannibalism, tohungaism, chiefs hand fed, inter tribal armed conflict etc.
It was preached by Maona Jackson in particular. His masterfully glib twaddle presented to gullible receptive brainwashed listeners in surroudings where no qrisk of questioning.

Peter said...

A sensible, well written piece, just a shame the writer refers to New Zealand as "Aotearoa", which has neither appropriate provenance, nor the mandate of its citizenship. By doing so, it also the narrative she is endeavouring to convey.

Anonymous said...

It is counterproductive to attempt to deconstruct a false decolonisation narrative when you peddle propaganda and wilful blindness at the same time.
I can sum the issue up much more concisely:

Our country is called New Zealand and the early Europeans signed an agreement with early Maori to ensure they would have full rights and privileges as British subjects

This agreement, while an important historical document, essentially became obsolete once our democracy was established in 1852.

Maori men got full suffrage before European men thus any comparison to Palestine is just plain stupid

Both Hamas and the State of Israel are terrorists, and anyone who enables them is just as culpable

Oct 7 did not exist in a vacuum - the author conveniently forgets Nakba and the 10s of thousand innocent Palestinians that have been displaced, bombed, maimed, brutalised, tortured, raped, assaulted, persecuted, murdered and imprisoned since

1 Israeli life is not worth more than 1 Palestinian life

Israel is no more a democratic state than Jim Crow was

Democracy precludes separatism.

Anonymous said...

Decolonisation is about removing those silly white man rules such as democracy and equality for all. You can see it slowly leaving society already and most kiwis know it

Anonymous said...

I am a white man and I was having a pleasant conversation with a friend who is not white. She brought up decolonisation and immediately she started treating me as a white man instead of a friend.

In that moment she was ideologically possessed. She was disconnected from her heart and became a mouth-piece for the cult. In that moment I was the enemy even though I hadn’t said anything.

At the time I didn’t grasp what exactly had happened but I could feel it was poisonous.

IMO she should run away from the decolonisation brigade as fast as she can. If she wants to address race issues then she should follow someone with integrity like MLK or Jesus or anyone that teaches her to see others as people and not just members of a racial group.

mudbayripper said...

Basically, to truly decolonize, it would require total rejection of all the modern democratic freedoms and techniclogical advancements acquired over many centuries.
Then remove all clothing and head back into the bush.
That would truly demonstrate a commitment to an ideal.
Can't see it happening though.

Anonymous said...

Before the awful white colonists arrived, Maori owned slaves - people taken in battle with the neighbouring tribes.
Slaves who were eaten if they ran short of other protein.

Yeah, let's go back to 1800

anonTeslaOwner said...

Great article Dr Trotter, many thanks for writing this.

Peter said...

The word that was missing from my above comment was "undermines" (the narrative...), but you probably guessed that?

Anon@11.16, calling Israel a terrorist is a very long bow. Nakba, wasn't terrorism per se, and just like the October attack, Israel didn't start it.

Allan said...

What does Donna Awatere smoke, and where can I get some.
We must not forget to forget who were the first (evil, all colonisers are evil) known colonisers of New Zealand and that it was the letter from 13 Ngapuhi chiefs to King William asking for the British Crown's help that led to that treaty which over 500 Maori chiefs signed.

Anonymous said...

The paru huas were New Zealand’s first colonisers.


‘Indigenous’ means you were here from the very beginning of time, i.e. before knowledge, handed-down memory, and the scientific record can accurately determine.

Indigenous means you didn’t come from somewhere else to settle here.

Clearly, Maori don’t fit the definition of indigenous. They were settlers here, like everyone else.  

Their own ‘from whakapapa’ hand-me-downs gleefully recount the killing, eating, enslavement, and dispossession of the people—the Tangata Whenua—who were already living here when the Maori arrived around 1250 AD in ancestral canoes, the names of which are still known today.

Unlike the Australian Aboriginals, who according to carbon dating can hold up time in the land of more than 40, 000 years, Maori are just another wave of immigrants who showed up about 400 years before Abel Tasman made landfall in 1642.

Maori tikanga holds that after death, Maori spirits leave NZ via its northernmost tip, Cape Reinga, to return to their ancestral homeland of Hawaiiki.

Hardly something they’d need to do if anyone alive today descended in part from a Maori was actually ‘Indigenous.’

Nimrods who assert otherwise should be called out loudly and often on the horse wallop they peddle.

Anyone descended in part from a Maori has exactly the same rights as everyone else.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Anonymous said...

With the coming of the musket, the various tribes possessed for the first time weapons of mass exterminationu with which to be revenged upon traditional enemies.

The farsighted saw that only outside intervention could arrest this ever-escalating cycle of inter-tribal violence.

Ngapuhi had been the first tribe to obtain muskets after Hongi Hika returned from England in 1821 with a large quantity of firearms, powder and shot.

These weapons were used by Ngapuhi to overrun much of the North Island in the first of the Musket Wars.

A destructive arms race ensued.

Thousands of Maori were killed as other tribes acquired European weapons of their own to wage war on immediate neighbours and further afield.

The Lyttelton Times of 4 September 1861 retrospectively reported that as a result, “Whole districts were depopulated, and large and powerful tribes driven from their ancestral lands.”

Tribes fleeing from Ngapuhi began pressing upon their neighbours all the way down the North Island. “[W]ar spread from tribe to tribe, till the whole North Island became one scene of bloodshed and massacre.”

In 1824, this carnage reached the South Island, after Te Rauparaha, crossed Cook Strait to attack Ngai Tahu.

These inter-tribal conflicts also led to significant indirect loss of life.

Thousands died of recently introduced respiratory ailments after moving down from their well-ventilated hilltop pas to low-lying, miasmic swampland to cut flax to trade for guns.

But by far the greatest killer was mass-scale starvation.

For pre-European Maori, fighting was a ritualised pursuit traditionally taking place once the kumara crop had been harvested.

After the onset of the Musket Wars, fighting became a year-round activity, because many tribes no longer bothered to cultivate, thinking instead to conquer their neighbours and take their food.

Since everyone else was operating on the same assumptions, thousands starved to death if they weren’t killed and eaten first by hungry war parties.

As an indication of how scarce grown or gathered foodstuffs were at that time, the Lyttelton Times reported that: “Hongi [Hika] and his party, in returning home [to Northland] through the districts they had overrun, were compelled to live almost entirely on human flesh.”

The Maori population in 1840 is today believed to have numbered around 100, 000.

By various estimates, the Musket Wars had led directly or indirectly to some 60, 000 – 100, 000 deaths over the period 1821 – 1838, after which the bloodshed tapered off because every tribe now had guns.

Maori culture’s ongoing requirement to extract utu (payback) from enemies meant this uneasy balance of power would always rest on a knife-edge.

A number of commentators have suggested that only by signing the TOW did Maori avert their complete self-destruction as a race.

The words of the chiefs themselves display a full awareness that their acceptance of Governor Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson stood Queen Victoria.

Eyewitness accounts of the pre-Treaty debates make it clear that none of the chiefs who signed it thought they were going into “partnership” with the Crown.

Those who spoke up for Hobson also leave no doubt that they expected British sovereignty to bring lasting peace to the land, as well as protecting them from annexation-minded foreign competitors.

Maori essentially accepted the TOW as an acknowledgement of the supremacy of Western culture, because the Maori way wasn’t working.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

Anonymous above says that "Indigenous means you didn’t come from somewhere else to settle here."
Think about it for a moment.......... it's impossible as it would require Homo sapiens to have evolved independently in thousands of places on Earth. That's not bioscience, it's pure common sense.
How to come become indigenous? Four simple steps: (1) occupy an area and defend it against intruders (2) interbreed only within the group so that you start looking a bit different from all other groups (3) develop a distinct language (invariably descended from an ancestral tongue) (4) from these parts, create a whole: a people who belong to a certain place and have a distinct culture and language. Hey bingo, henceforth you are now indigenous.
It is interesting to apply this formula to certain other groups such as the South African Afrikaner, the White Aussie and Kiwi....... well, why not? If the Laplander is a White indigenous race, why not?

Anonymous said...

Bravo Bravo Dr Sheree Trotter. This article is a supreme explanation of what's devolving in our country, with "click-bait victim-speak" from the likes of Ngarewa-Packer leading the loony leftist diatribe. I am so grateful to God that there are morally-sound, erudite people like you, who can sift the issues and explain what we are up against. Wherever I stand, I stand with Israel.

Barbara McKenzie said...

'Hamas, the radical Islamist terrorist organisation that slaughtered the greatest number of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust, in an orgy of sexual violence, blood curdling torture and depravity.' None of this is proven - most has been debunked.

'is now feted on American university campuses as a valiant force fighting for the liberation of the “oppressed Palestinian people”.' Nope, this isn't about Hamas.

'Thus, savagery is now defended in the enlightened halls of power and influence' That bit's true: Israel was founded on savageys and Anglo-Saxon countries like New Zealand have always celebrated it. Acts of terrorism by Zionist thugs were regularly reported in the English-language press in the 30s and 40s - New Zealand's response? 'Our kind of people, let's give them someone else's country.

'If you happen to be brown but don’t buy into the ideology, behold, you are actually white.' Hullo, what about all the Jews, including Israelis, who oppose the actions and even the existence of Israel, who are termed antisemite?

It's depressing that so many in New Zealand, right and left, can't see the difference between the situations in Palestine and New Zealand

Anonymous said...

Barbara McKenzie is talking horse wallop.

“Someone else’s country”?

What is now Israel was the Promised Land of the Jewish people for centuries before Islam was invented by Muhammad.

“From the River to the Sea, Palestine [sic] will be free”?

Now where does THAT come from?

It is often claimed that Israel is provoked by the mere existence of Palestinian Arabs and wants to wipe them out.

In fact, it is Arab-Islamists who are affronted by the mere existence of Jews and want to eradicate them from the world.

Muslim anti-Semitism first arose centuries before the establishment of Jewish Israel.

Islamic scripture (the Koran and associated Hadith narratives of Muhammad’s life and sayings) records that the Jews of Yathrib (now Medina) repeatedly refused to convert to Islam when asked by Muhammad to do so.

An angry Muhammad then cursed the Jewish people, describing them as “the offspring of apes and pigs,” damning them in this world and the next.

That’s why Muslims have always see Jews as the worst and most inveterate enemies of Islam.

An oft-quoted Hadith saying of Muhammad that is part of the charter of the Gaza Strip’s rulers, Hamas, states: “The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’“

Muslim Jew-hatred has undoubtedly increased in the Islamic world during modern times.

It was fanned by the Nazis in the 1930s, then still further by Soviet Agit-Prop after World War II, making it a core Arab-Islamist weapon in the ideological and political struggle against Israel.

Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, has been translated into Arabic. It is widely read and revered throughout the Middle East for its pronouncements about Jews.

Pakistan’s Sheikh Maolana Mawdudi has written admiringly of the “ingenious and mighty leadership of Hitler and his comrades.”

In much the same vein as Hitler, Hasan Nasrullah, the leader of Hezbollah, has said: "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew."

Muslims hold that once a place has been ruled by Muslims, it is “Islamic land” forever.

What is now Israel was ruled for centuries by Muslim Ottoman Turks after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Muslims thus see it as a holy duty to wipe Israel off the map. Indeed, many Arab maps of the Middle East don’t show Israel at all.

Anonymous said...

more than 2, 000 years there has never been a state called Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.

Those claiming today to be “Palestinians” are in fact Arabs. They could go live in any Arab country, if other Arab leaders would agree to take them in.

“Palestinian” is an entirely political construct.

From the first century when Rome renamed the Jewish state “Palestine” until the mid-20th century, “Palestine” was associated with Jews and the Jewish homeland.

Arabs and Jews living in the pre-1948 Palestine Mandate all had British-issued Palestine Mandate passports, but Arab residents were generally referred to as Arabs, not Palestinians.

Jews in the area used the name Palestine for their cultural activities, newspapers and business enterprises.

There was the Palestine Post (later the Jerusalem Post), the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, the Palestine Electric Company, the Palestine Potash Company and others.

As local Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission in 1937: “Palestine is a term the Zionists invented … Our country [sic] for centuries was part of Syria.”

After 1948 when the reborn Jewish State took the name Israel, the term “Palestine” went out of usage to refer to Israel.

In 1964, the term was revived when Egypt helped organize the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization. By the 1970s, the term came to be associated with Arabs, not Jews.

Sermonising against Israel on Egypt's Al-Rahma TV on October 31, 2009, Egyptian cleric Hazem Shuman stated that: “It has been proven that the Jews are like a cancer – if they are not removed from the body of the [Islamic] nation, they will kill the entire nation.”

Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, stated in an anti-Israeli sermon which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on August 10, 2012 that: “If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female.”

Of course, the Jews are already squatting on “Islamic land.”

Speaking at a public rally held in Gaza on 8 December 2012, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal proclaimed that “jihad,” armed struggle, will continue until Israel is defeated, conquered, and replaced — every square mile — by an Islamist theocracy.

“Since Palestine is ours, and it is the land of the Arabs and Islam,” he said, “it is unthinkable that we would recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of it ... Let me emphasize that we adhere to this fundamental principle: We do not recognize Israel … The Palestinian resistance will crush it and sweep it away, be it Allah’s will.”

Anonymous said...

Palestinian Arab mythology about the Arab-Israel conflict is best summed up by Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, who on 29 November 2012 told the United Nations: “[because of Israel] hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were torn from their homes and displaced within and outside of their homeland, thrown from their beautiful, embracing, prosperous country to refugee camps in one of the most dreadful campaigns of ethnic cleansing and dispossession in modern history.”

The facts of the matter are entirely different.

Within hours of the historic 1948 United Nations decision to partition the former British Mandate of “Palestine” into a Jewish state and state for the Arabs now referred to as “Palestinians,” Israel was attacked without warning by six Arab nations promising to drive the Jews into the sea and complete Hitler's work.

Despite repeated assurances from Jewish leaders that non-combatants would remain unmolested, many Palestinian Arabs then fled to refugee camps in Lebanon and the Gaza strip, at that time part of Egypt.

They expected to return to their homes in a few days once the Arabs armies were victorious.

But the unthinkable happened. The Jews won.

The Palestinian Arab leaders have kept their people trapped in squalid refugee camps as a political weapon ever since.

This demonstrates the late Yasser Arafat's mastery of a Communist political tactic known as "The National Question."

Based on the works of Lenin and Stalin dating back to 1905, Marxist-Leninists have for decades encouraged the independence aspirations of indigenous peoples and minority groups to bring about the overthrow of the existing social order, and eventual socialist control.

Arafat's Soviet instructors soon helped him to see that world opinion could be mobilised behind his cause if the refugees became "Palestinians" rather than Arabs.

By becoming "Palestinians," the Arabs succeeded in turning the Arab-Israeli conflict from a war of annihilation against the Jews into a struggle of dispossessed natives against colonialist invaders.

Anonymous said...

The Arab League and the UN currently count as some 4.3 million Palestinian Arabs as "refugees" or the descendants of refugees.

This must rule out Arab claims of Israeli "genocide," since the 700,000 Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948-9 have evidently multiplied by some 600% in less than 60 years.

Only a small minority of the refugees (and of the Palestinian Arab population in general) were actually land-owners. Most were tenant farmers or "fellahin."

Others were urban tradesmen, many of whom had arrived only recently in the area from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, drawn by the economic opportunities presented by Zionist returnees in the early part of the 20th Century.

The idea that descendants of these economic migrants have any legitimate claim to being “Palestinian” is laughable.

Let’s now consider how Israel's occupation of the West Bank came about.

In 1967, Israel's Arab neighbors made yet another attempt to exterminate Israel; just as Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and most Palestinian Arabs and other Muslims in the Middle East today wish to do.

It was because of that war, won by Israel, that Israel came to occupy the West Bank of Jordan.

Palestinian Arabs engage in national honoring of their numerous terrorists.

The Arab media is saturated with crude, exterminationist and anti-Semitic propaganda.

There is widespread Palestinian support for terrorism (according to the just-released Pew Forum poll of Muslims, 40 percent of Palestinians support suicide terror).

And after the Israelis gave the whole of Gaza to the Palestinians, the Palestinian Arabs converted it into a terror-state that regularly launches rockets into Israel to kill as many Israelis as possible.

The barrier to co-existence between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, most of whom want peace and economic prosperity, is a Palestinian Arab leadership wedded to a crude amalgam of Islam and Marxist-Leninist ideology, and endorsed in its hatred, division and violence by Marxist Western intellectuals who are perennial cheerleaders for the destruction of any free society.

After all, if your goal is a one-world socialist government, you can march a long way beside those whose goal is a one-world theocracy before you have to part company.

Barbara McKenzie said...

In reply to one of the many 'Anonymous' contributors.

Of course Palestine was someone else's country. Ashkenazi Jews derived from Khazaria, a region of Eastern Europe/Western Asia, whose ancestors had converted to Judaism. They had no historic, cultural or genetic links to the Levant, nor religious these days. What did Ilan Pappe say? Israelis are atheist, but they believe God gave them Palestine.

Xenophobic New Zealanders support the colonisation of Palestine just because the Zionists are European rather than Middle Eastern.