The notion of a Jewish people in the political sense is a 19th century introduction of Zionism. It implies that Jews should not be citizens of the countries where they live and that they belong to the same “people” wherever they are from. It is a matter for controversy or strong opposition among many secular or religious Jews and historians of all convictions;

Even if we accept the principle of building up a Jewish nationhood, it is utterly illegitimate to infringe or deny another people’s right to their homeland;

The fact that zionism was fostered by the British Empire and recognised as accomplished fact by the United Nations itself does not make it a legitimate ideology. An ideology can only be legitimate if it supports the rights of the individuals.

It is a matter of historical facts that the early Zionists envisioned themselves as a colonial movement which should model itself upon other colonial experiences and obtain their support;

There is a contradiction here: the Zionists cannot claim that the support they got from the British Empire was a mark of international legitimacy and that later armed rebellion against that same world power was a heroic fight for freedom;

It is a mercy to hear recognition that Zionist terror groups fought the British at the very time when the British Empire was at war with Nazi Germany;

Contradictions may arise within the imperialist side. The OAS - Organisation de l'Armée Secrète - was a French breakaway faction who fought the regular French army and government at the end of the Independence War of Algeria. Their motive was to uphold the colonial status and they opposed national liberation of the Algerian people.

That Palestine was not inhabited before Zionism is a fallacy. The myth of “land without a people for a people without a land” was concocted by the early Zionists to gather support for their colonising enterprise. There is abundant proof of a long-established farming economy which implies a sedentary population. The only desert there was in Palestine before the Zionist conquest is the Negev and it is still a desert today nearly 60 years after the State of Israel came into being;

It is a good thing to remember that National-Christianism – i.e. the ideology of South-African apartheid - also used to refute the existence of African population prior to the European colonisation. This myth has equally been rebutted by science.

It is true that Palestinian Arabs rather used to think of themselves as part of Greater Syria and that a specific Palestinian nationhood identity emerged in response to the Zionist threat. Palestinian nationalism is nonetheless a perfectly  legitimate ideology as long as it supports the rightful claim of each Palestinian to a safe and decent life in their homeland;

That "all Arabs are alike" is a contemptful notion for their common and specific cultures and a hardly-covered suggestion that the Palestinians could or should be "transferred" - again - out of Palestine;

Another contradiction here: the Zionists deny that the Palestinians have a specific identity to justify their claim to Palestine and at the same time they invite Jews from all around the world to colonise what they call "Eretz Israel", while they share no common culture or language. What is more, the definition of who is Jewish is a matter of continued debate and strife within even the State of Israel;

Some Zionists claim that present Jews are the bloodline descendants of the ancient Hebrews which is impossible to prove. In opposition there are serious hints to the contrary:

	many of those ancient Hebrews converted to other religions such as Christianity and Islam and are likely to be actual ancestors of present Palestinians;
	mass conversions of pagan people to Judaism happened in the early Middle  Ages such as the Kingdom of Khazaria in what today is Ukraine;
	albeit in small proportions the Jews have intermarried with people of other origins and religions over the centuries.

The question that Arab leaders might have urged the refugees to go is irrelevant in itself: it is a right for every civilian to flee to safety from the dangers of war and return to their homes and properties. Let's look into it anyway;

Some people did leave out of their own volition. However the instances are few and they feature well-to-do families who had businesses, relatives or homes out of Palestine: of course they are not representative of the bulk of the refugees;

The theory that the Arab leaders needed the civilians to leave their homes to carry out a war to destroy the state of Israel makes little sense in military terms. Just 8 years before (May-June '40) the French authorities urged Belgians and Northern French not to flee from the advance of the Wehrmacht because civilians on the roads hindered their counter-attacks. There is evidence that similarly the Palestinian authorities ordered the civilians to stay and defend their places;

Ethnic cleansing goes along with the Zionist enterprise from the start and especially since it was realised that Jewish majority could not be achieved through immigration alone. There is indeed profusion of reports and writings of the Zionist leadership advocating mass transfer of the native Palestinians years before the breakout of the 1948 war;

Threats and slaughters were carried out throughout the country to spread terror onto the native civilians. Deir Yassin (09/04/1948) is the most famous of these events and only one in a long list;

There is again a racist contempt towards the Palestinians, portraying them leaving all at once the places where they had lived for centuries for no other reason than to obey the call of remote Arab leaders, just like a flock of sheep.

If we believe the Israeli propaganda, the Arab states are responsible for enticing the Palestinians out of Palestine and for expelling their Jewish fellow-citizens. However, the immigration of Arab Jews into Israel was a phenomenon forced by the Israeli establishment starting a few years after the mass eviction of the Palestinians. This was achieved through:

	terrorism in Egypt and Iraq,
	negotiation with Morocco;
	mass transportation from Yemen.

It is true however that in some cases the Israeli underground agents were successful in provoking Muslims to attack their Jewish fellow-citizens and to play in Zionists' hands. It would be wrong however to have the Palestinians bear the burden of faults that were not theirs;

In many cases the Arab Jewish immigrants were allotted the possessions that the state of Israel looted from the Palestinians, who were not granted such compensation;

As to what the Arab states should do with the Palestinians, the right of return is individual. No politician, no administration is entitled to forfeit this right on their behalf without their consent;

Again contempt for the Palestinians:

	to assume that the Arab states can do what they want with them, without them having a say in their lives;
	it is very naïve of the Israelis to claim that the Palestinian refugees should forget about the land where they have lived for centuries a few decades after they were evicted and all the while calling upon the Jews to move to Palestine 2,000 years after the downfall of the Israelite civilisation.

This is close to admitting that the eviction was a right thing in the first place since it made it possible to have a "Jewish" majority and that it might be resorted to again in the future to preserve this artificial majority. None of this is acceptable under civilised international lawfulness;

If the right of return of the refugees is asserted by international legality, why should Israel be above the law for ideological considerations of its own?

The UN Security Council lays a stress on "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". Israel has all but annexed these territories, building settlements and diverting the natural resources. It has only stopped short of outright annexation because it would mean to accept in the Palestinian population and put the artificial Jewish majority at risk.

It only takes a firm stance against this abhorrent moral blackmail to realise that there nothing common to these two subjects:

The European Jews were citizens of their countries and they were victims of a genocide and several crimes against humanity;

Meanwhile the Zionist settlements are not discriminated against by the dominating power. Quite the opposite: they are pawns of Israel's expansionism as it has been repeatedly condemned by international law. They are set up as a pretext for Israeli administration and an obstacle for a viable Palestinian state to come into being.

The Zionists' endeavour to portray themselves as victims through the desecration of the Holocaust victims' memory is particularly obnoxious as their goal is the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.