John Mearsheimer - Invoking the Holocaust to Defend the Occupation
Peace Power
For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state. The situation
got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner — both staunch defenders of Israel
— wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
Let's hope that The Holocaust is Over
(The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0230607527/talpoimem-20
is widely read and discussed, because it makes arguments that need to
be heard and considered by Americans of all persuasions, but
especially by those who feel a deep attachment to Israel. The fact
that Burg wrote this book also matters greatly. He cannot be easily
dismissed as a self-hating Jew or a crank, as he comes from a
prominent Israeli family and has been deeply involved in mainstream
Israeli politics for much of his adult life. Moreover, he clearly
loves Israel.
Burg makes many smart points in his book, but I would like to focus on
what I take to be his central arguments. His core message is that
Israel is in serious trouble at home and there is good reason to think
that things could go horribly wrong in the future. He emphasizes that
Israel has changed greatly since 1948. He quotes his mother on this
point: "This country is not the country that we built. We founded a
different country in 1948, but I don't know where it's disappeared."
Israel today, he writes, "is frighteningly similar to the countries we
never wanted to resemble." Talking about Israel's shift to the right
over time, he makes the eye-popping observation that "Jews and
Israelis have become thugs."
Burg makes it clear that he is not equating Israel's past behavior
with what happened in Nazi Germany, but he does see disturbing
similarities between Israel and "the Germany that preceded Hitler."
This raises the obvious question: could Israel end up going on a
murderous rampage against the Palestinians? Burg thinks it is
possible. He writes, "The notion that this cannot happen to us because
our history as persecuted people makes us immune to hatred and racism
is very dangerous. A look inside Israel shows that the erosion has
begun." He even raises the possibility that there might be a civil war
inside Israel, which "will be not a war between members of the Jewish
people of different shades of beliefs, but an uncompromising struggle
between good people and bad people anywhere."
Burg is aware that many American Jews will dismiss his arguments
because they are so at odds with the picture of Israel that they have
in their heads. Accordingly, he reminds the reader: "I come from
there, and my friends and relatives are still there. I listen to their
talk, know their ambitions, and feel their heartbeats. I know where
they are headed." And where they might be headed worries him greatly.
Again, he fears that Israel will end up following in the footsteps of
Germany, where "slow processes altered the perception of reality to
the degree that insanity became the norm, and then we were
exterminated. It happened in the land of poets and philosophers. There
it was possible, and here too, in the land of the prophets. The
establishment of a state run by rabbis and generals is not an
impossible nightmare. I know how difficult this comparison is, but
please open your ears, eyes, and hearts."
Many American Jews think that Israel is in trouble today because of
anti-Semitism or because it is surrounded by dangerous adversaries who
threaten Israel's very existence. Israelis themselves, Burg reminds
us, love to emphasize that "the entire world is against us." He
dismisses these wrongheaded beliefs: "Today we are armed to the teeth,
better equipped than any other generation in Jewish history. We have a
tremendous army, an obsession with security, and the safety net of the
United States … Anti-Semitism seems ridiculous, even innocuous
compared with the strength of the Jewish people of today."
For Burg, Israel's troubles are self-inflicted. Specifically, he
maintains that the principal cause of Israel's problems is the legacy
of the Holocaust, which has become omnipresent in Israeli life. "Not a
day passes," he writes, "without a mention of the Shoah in the only
newspaper I read, Ha'aretz." Indeed, Israeli children are taught in
school that "we are all Shoah survivors." The result is that Israelis
(and most American Jews for that matter) cannot think straight about
the world around them. They think that everyone is out to get them,
and that the Palestinians are hardly any different than the Nazis.
Given this despairing perspective, Israelis believe that almost any
means is justified to counter their enemies. The implication of Burg's
argument is that if there was less emphasis on the Holocaust, Israelis
would change their thinking about "others" in fundamental ways and
this would allow them to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and
lead a more peaceful and decent life.
There is some truth in this defensive psychological argument, but Burg
also provides much evidence for a different interpretation of how the
Holocaust relates to Israeli life. In particular, he shows that
Israeli society is plagued with a host of serious problems that are
threatening to tear it apart and that the Holocaust is a "tool at the
service of the Jewish people," which they use to protect Israel from
criticism and to keep those centrifugal forces at bay. He identifies
three basic problems: 1) Israelis are badly divided among themselves;
"the Jewish world always had colossal disputes between colossal
figures"; 2) the grave danger that large numbers of Israelis will
emigrate to Europe and North America; and 3) the Occupation, which has
had a corrupting effect on Israeli society and has drawn criticism
from all around the globe. Playing the Holocaust card, Burg shows, is
thought to be the best way to deal with these problems. He quotes the
Israeli writer, Boaz Evron, to make this point: the Shoah "is our main
asset nowadays. This is the only thing by which we try to unify the
Jews. This is the only way to scare Israelis into not emigrating. This
is the only thing by which they try to silence the gentiles." Of
course, there is another instrument that Israel and its defenders
frequently employ, which is the charge of anti-Semitism.
To take my instrumentalist argument a step further, Burg provides
evidence that the main reason that Israelis and their supporters
constantly invoke the Holocaust is because of the Occupation, and the
horrible things that Israel has done and continues to do to the
Palestinians. The Shoah is the weapon that Israelis and their
supporters in the Diaspora use to fend off criticism and to allow
Israel to continue committing crimes against the Palestinians. Burg
writes: "All is compared to the Shoah, dwarfed by the Shoah, and
therefore all is allowed — be it fences, sieges, crowns, curfews, food
and water deprivation, or unexplained killings. All is permitted
because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to
behave."
The best evidence that Israel's obsession with the Holocaust is linked
with the Occupation is found in Burg's discussion of the evolution of
Israeli thinking about the Holocaust itself. He shows clearly that
Israeli thinking about the Shoah has varied considerably over time.
The leaders of the Yishuv "did very little in response to the
annihilation of Europe's Jews" when it was happening. "They did not
want to waste emotional resources that could otherwise be channeled
into building the Jewish state." Moreover, Israelis did not focus much
attention on the Holocaust in the first decade or so after 1948 and
they showed surprisingly little sympathy for the survivors who came to
Israel after the war. But all that changed in the 1960s, starting with
the Eichmann trial, but picking up a head of steam after Israel
conquered the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and began the Occupation. "To
understand the wrong turn we took," he writes, "we need to go back to
the 1960s, the Eichmann trial, the Six-Day War, and all that lies in
between." He goes even further and notes that the 1990s — and remember
that the First Intifada broke out in December 1987 — was the "decade
of transition from the mythology of the early state to the obsessive
journeys to the scene of the crime." The pattern seems clear: the
Holocaust has been the main weapon that Israelis (and their supporter
abroad) have employed to provide cover for the horrors Israel has
inflicted on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
All of this is to say that the best way to rescue Israel from its
plight is not simply to get beyond the Holocaust, but to end the
Occupation. Then, the need to talk incessantly about the Holocaust
will be greatly reduced and Israel will be a much healthier and secure
country. Sadly, there is no end in sight to the Occupation, and thus
we are likely to hear more, not less, about the Holocaust in years
ahead.
Peace Power
DoD
jgarbuz
fully recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist under international law, and
apologize for putting their Mosques on the sacred soil of our Holy
Temple mount - holocaust or no holocaust. With or without a holocaust,
Israel is the NATIONAL SACRED HOMELAND OF THE JEWISH NATION, whether
they live in exile or now live back in the land. As for Burg, he's
just another Jewish renegade and traitor in a long line of such
renegades and traitors going back to Moses, and even before to the
brothers of Joseph who sold him into slavery to the Ishmaelites. He's
pissed because his father was big fat man in the parliament, but he's
a talkative nobody. When Jews feel slighted by their own, they become
renegades or even traitors to their own.
On Dec 10, 10:29 pm, Peace Power <studywarnomore...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By John Mearsheimer
> For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
> book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
> are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
> is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
> the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
> have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state. The situation
> got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
> Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner — both staunch defenders of Israel
> — wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
>
> Let's hope that The Holocaust is Over
> (The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0230607527/talpoimem-20
> http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/10/john-mearsheimer-invoking-th...
Peace Power
> Israel is the NATIONAL SACRED HOMELAND OF THE JEWISH NATION
ELEPHANT SHIT.
DoD
> On Dec 10, 7:57 pm, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
> ELEPHANT SHIT.
Is that what you use for your mud mask?
Peace Power
<snip derailing>
DoD
> On Dec 10, 9:37 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Cramer
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e58402c-4f74-4efb...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
By John Mearsheimer
For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state. The situation
got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner - both staunch defenders of Israel
- wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
United States . Anti-Semitism seems ridiculous, even innocuous
therefore all is allowed - be it fences, sieges, crowns, curfews, food
and water deprivation, or unexplained killings. All is permitted
because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to
behave."
The best evidence that Israel's obsession with the Holocaust is linked
with the Occupation is found in Burg's discussion of the evolution of
Israeli thinking about the Holocaust itself. He shows clearly that
Israeli thinking about the Shoah has varied considerably over time.
The leaders of the Yishuv "did very little in response to the
annihilation of Europe's Jews" when it was happening. "They did not
want to waste emotional resources that could otherwise be channeled
into building the Jewish state." Moreover, Israelis did not focus much
attention on the Holocaust in the first decade or so after 1948 and
they showed surprisingly little sympathy for the survivors who came to
Israel after the war. But all that changed in the 1960s, starting with
the Eichmann trial, but picking up a head of steam after Israel
conquered the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and began the Occupation. "To
understand the wrong turn we took," he writes, "we need to go back to
the 1960s, the Eichmann trial, the Six-Day War, and all that lies in
between." He goes even further and notes that the 1990s - and remember
that the First Intifada broke out in December 1987 - was the "decade
Ben Cramer
"jgarbuz" <jga...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:e48b03a1-f5c5-45a2...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>There never will be any end to the "occupation" until 56 Muslim states
>fully recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist under international law,
Ersatz israel needs to recognise the Arab's right to exist first,
garbageguz.
When has Ersatz israel ever given a flying fuck for international law or
conventions?
Ben Cramer
On Dec 10, 11:10 pm, Peace Power <deadsoldiersno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 7:57 pm, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
By John Mearsheimer
For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state. The situation
got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner - both staunch defenders of Israel
- wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
United States . Anti-Semitism seems ridiculous, even innocuous
therefore all is allowed - be it fences, sieges, crowns, curfews, food
and water deprivation, or unexplained killings. All is permitted
because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to
behave."
The best evidence that Israel's obsession with the Holocaust is linked
with the Occupation is found in Burg's discussion of the evolution of
Israeli thinking about the Holocaust itself. He shows clearly that
Israeli thinking about the Shoah has varied considerably over time.
The leaders of the Yishuv "did very little in response to the
annihilation of Europe's Jews" when it was happening. "They did not
want to waste emotional resources that could otherwise be channeled
into building the Jewish state." Moreover, Israelis did not focus much
attention on the Holocaust in the first decade or so after 1948 and
they showed surprisingly little sympathy for the survivors who came to
Israel after the war. But all that changed in the 1960s, starting with
the Eichmann trial, but picking up a head of steam after Israel
conquered the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and began the Occupation. "To
understand the wrong turn we took," he writes, "we need to go back to
the 1960s, the Eichmann trial, the Six-Day War, and all that lies in
between." He goes even further and notes that the 1990s - and remember
that the First Intifada broke out in December 1987 - was the "decade
of transition from the mythology of the early state to the obsessive
journeys to the scene of the crime." The pattern seems clear: the
Holocaust has been the main weapon that Israelis (and their supporter
abroad) have employed to provide cover for the horrors Israel has
inflicted on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
All of this is to say that the best way to rescue Israel from its
plight is not simply to get beyond the Holocaust, but to end the
Occupation. Then, the need to talk incessantly about the Holocaust
will be greatly reduced and Israel will be a much healthier and secure
country. Sadly, there is no end in sight to the Occupation, and thus
we are likely to hear more, not less, about the Holocaust in years
ahead.
Ben Cramer
On Dec 10, 11:47 pm, Peace Power <deadsoldiersno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:37 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state. The situation
got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
- wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
United States . Anti-Semitism seems ridiculous, even innocuous
therefore all is allowed - be it fences, sieges, crowns, curfews, food
and water deprivation, or unexplained killings. All is permitted
because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to
behave."
The best evidence that Israel's obsession with the Holocaust is linked
with the Occupation is found in Burg's discussion of the evolution of
Israeli thinking about the Holocaust itself. He shows clearly that
Israeli thinking about the Shoah has varied considerably over time.
The leaders of the Yishuv "did very little in response to the
annihilation of Europe's Jews" when it was happening. "They did not
want to waste emotional resources that could otherwise be channeled
into building the Jewish state." Moreover, Israelis did not focus much
attention on the Holocaust in the first decade or so after 1948 and
they showed surprisingly little sympathy for the survivors who came to
Israel after the war. But all that changed in the 1960s, starting with
the Eichmann trial, but picking up a head of steam after Israel
conquered the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and began the Occupation. "To
understand the wrong turn we took," he writes, "we need to go back to
the 1960s, the Eichmann trial, the Six-Day War, and all that lies in
between." He goes even further and notes that the 1990s - and remember
that the First Intifada broke out in December 1987 - was the "decade
of transition from the mythology of the early state to the obsessive
journeys to the scene of the crime." The pattern seems clear: the
Holocaust has been the main weapon that Israelis (and their supporter
abroad) have employed to provide cover for the horrors Israel has
inflicted on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
All of this is to say that the best way to rescue Israel from its
plight is not simply to get beyond the Holocaust, but to end the
Occupation. Then, the need to talk incessantly about the Holocaust
will be greatly reduced and Israel will be a much healthier and secure
country. Sadly, there is no end in sight to the Occupation, and thus
we are likely to hear more, not less, about the Holocaust in years
ahead.
fla...@verizon.net
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
At least your signature is more honest than usual, Vera.
Susan
Peace Power
> On 11-Dec-2008, Peace Power <deadsoldiersno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 7:57 pm, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > > Israel is the NATIONAL SACRED HOMELAND OF THE JEWISH NATION
> > ELEPHANT SHIT.
> At least your signature is more honest than usual.
Que?
Your dyslexia is kicking in, Susan.
Dead Soldiers No Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
deadsoldiersnowmd
> Susan
jgarbuz
> "jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message
A lot more so than you Nazis and your Islamofascist wannabes.
TallHenry
Ben Cramer <ben'sal...@around.com> wrote:
> When has Ersatz israel ever given a flying fuck for international law or
> conventions?
When has your country ever given a flying fuck for international
law or conventions, you motherless aussie bastard?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/31/australia.woomera/
"CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- A United Nations human rights envoy
has slammed conditions in Australia's Woomera detention camp, saying
the situation there in many cases was 'inhuman and degrading'".
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/refu-o13.shtml
"Australian navy fires on refugee boat".
Australia's culpability in East Timor's genocide
------------------------------------------------
http://www.pcug.org.au/~wildwood/earlyviva.htm
"Australian governments all sought to influence the destiny of East
Timor. This destiny became one of the longest ongoing acts of genocide
since the European Holocaust of the Second World War. I am reminded of
the French Vichy Government of that war which supplied and organised
the freight train convoys that carried persecuted Jews to the Nazi
ovens. Canberra's warts-and-all allegiance with Jakarta; the almost $2
billion in bilateral aid; the million of dollars in military gifts,
defence training and defence co-operation; and the political lobbying
in the international arena for Jakarta's position, all helped to
create a similar cattlewagon, transporting the East Timorese to their
diabolical fate." Jim Aubrey, editor, 'Free East Timor: Australia's
culpability in East Timor's genocide'.
last_per...@yahoo.com
ZioNazi turds dwell at the bottom of the human food chain, garbuzz.
Is-it-real consistently ranks at the top of most hated nations,
ZioTurdnick
Peace Power
Hey, fang/shein, are the authorities allowing you to see your children
yet?
It's been a long time since you were court ordered to stay away from
them.
That's what happens to batterers'.
Gary Renzetti
In Sowsan's world, objective reporting is a "crime" it appears.
Collective punishments, illegal deportations, extra-judicial murders,
shooting kids, holding hostages, torture, terrorism, and of course land
theft are all fine in Sowsie's opinion though, as long as it's her
beloved ziothugs perpretating such crap.
Gary Renzetti
>
> Sowsan
Once the lies get snipped, Sowsie's posts tend to use much less bandwidth.
jgarbuz
Who cares if we are loved or hated? What counts is that outnumbered
100 to 1, 13 million Jews can beat 1.3 billion Muslims. Love and hate
are just 4 letter meaningless words. What counts is winning and not
losing. Everybody loves a winner regardless. Everyone hates a loser.
HHW
Hitler was a winner long before he became a loser.
I'm sure that you will consider this article about Hebron an example
Jewish "winning". Just recall that winning is by no means permanent.
It doesn't come from self-delusion or breast beating such as you are
displaying more and more, Jack.
HHW
> There never will be any end to the "occupation" until 56 Muslim states
> fully recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist under international law, and
> apologize for putting their Mosques on the sacred soil of our Holy
> Temple mount - holocaust or no holocaust. With or without a holocaust,
> Israel is the NATIONAL SACRED HOMELAND OF THE JEWISH NATION, whether
> they live in exile or now live back in the land. As for Burg, he's
> just another Jewish renegade and traitor in a long line of such
> renegades and traitors going back to Moses, and even before to the
> brothers of Joseph who sold him into slavery to the Ishmaelites. He's
> pissed because his father was big fat man in the parliament, but he's
> a talkative nobody. When Jews feel slighted by their own, they become
> renegades or even traitors to their own.
Jack, you really ought to help your people get this over with.
Instead you use the same tactics as the Israeli government. In this
case it's the insistence on unattainable demands so as to defeat calls
for compromise. You demand that 56 nations which have Muslim
populations not only agree that Israel has a right to exist but that
they must apologise for having been offended by the Nakba.
It's sad, indeed, that you see Jewish patriots in Israel such as Burg
as renegades. Worse than sad, self-defeating. Instead you should take
an anti-anxiety pill and then listen closely to what they say. If
nothing else their courage is unquestionable. As to Burg's "nobody"
status, you should recall that he was the Speaker of the Knesset, an
IDF paratroop officer and comes from a prominent family which was
politically prominent before 1948. He's a very intelligent and
experienced man with good nationalist credentials. One can be a great
nationalist without going along to get along.
Despite all this, you can not blame him and his family for having the
foresight to take French citizenship. Israeli policies are basically
suicidal. It's crazed Zionists such as you who are making tens of
thousands follow the path of preparing for immigration.
Kurt Knoll
freedom speech and expression then it is high time we all care about. There
is no holocaust education the only thing we know is holocaust
indoctrination.
Kurt Knoll.
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31a799c2-c2da-4ed2...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
I'll Always Be Here
news:pM_0l.647$O53.445@edtnps82:
> When the Jewish sate is instrumental in invoking laws that restrict the
> freedom speech and expression then it is high time we all care about.
When knolls restrict our right to get answers from them by denying our
freedom of speech and expression, then it is high time we all complain to
the Canadian Government.
> There is no holocaust education the only thing we know is holocaust
> indoctrination.
Yes, the university slime zundel, irving, duke, leuchter, toeben and stolz
do not want us to know the truth
> Kurt Knoll.
>
> "HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:31a799c2-c2da-4ed2-9358-
dd57f4...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
jgarbuz
> On Dec 10, 9:57 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > There never will be any end to the "occupation" until 56 Muslim states
> > fully recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist under international law, and
> > apologize for putting their Mosques on the sacred soil of our Holy
> > Temple mount - holocaust or no holocaust. With or without a holocaust,
> > Israel is the NATIONAL SACRED HOMELAND OF THE JEWISH NATION, whether
> > they live in exile or now live back in the land. As for Burg, he's
> > just another Jewish renegade and traitor in a long line of such
> > renegades and traitors going back to Moses, and even before to the
> > brothers of Joseph who sold him into slavery to the Ishmaelites. He's
> > pissed because his father was big fat man in the parliament, but he's
> > a talkative nobody. When Jews feel slighted by their own, they become
> > renegades or even traitors to their own.
>
> Jack, you really ought to help your people get this over with.
>
> Instead you use the same tactics as the Israeli government. In this
> case it's the insistence on unattainable demands so as to defeat calls
> for compromise. <
Israel HAS compromised again and again and again since before the
state was founded. But the Arab Muslims feel they will win in the long
run, because of numbers or whatever, so why should they compromise? As
I've said countless times, until 56 Muslim states fully recognize
ISrael's RIGHT to exist, and are prepared to accept reasonable
proposals, there can be no permanent peace. The Arabs insist on
dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel must accept. ISrael they
say, MUST go back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines). Israel
must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again. Israel must take in the so-called
"refugees." EVen then, they say nothing about Israel's RIGHT to exist,
but only speak about "normalizing" relatins, whatever the fuck that's
supposed to mean. You'd think THEY won all the wars and Israel had to
accept their terms on its knees like Japan and Germany after being
bombed out and defeated. With me, no way Jose.
>You demand that 56 nations which have Muslim
> populations not only agree that Israel has a right to exist but that
> they must apologise for having been offended by the Nakba.<
Not only that, but the Islamic religious councils (the Ulemas) must
state that Israel is JEWISH SOIL, and not Islamic or Arab land. And
issue final fatwas to that effect. Otherwise, to me there is no real
peace to be had. It' s pure bullshit.
> It's sad, indeed, that you see Jewish patriots in Israel such as Burg
> as renegades. Worse than sad, self-defeating. Instead you should take
> an anti-anxiety pill and then listen closely to what they say. <
I don't have to listen to what they say, because I know what they say.
The same things were said over 100 years ago. If the Zionists had
listened to them, the JEws would still be in ghettos,those who
survived. And some Jews prefer being in ghettos. Some blacks preferred
to be slaves than free, as being free meant responsibilities.
>If
> nothing else their courage is unquestionable. As to Burg's "nobody"
> status, you should recall that he was the Speaker of the Knesset, an
> IDF paratroop officer and comes from a prominent family which was
> politically prominent before 1948. He's a very intelligent and
> experienced man with good nationalist credentials. One can be a great
> nationalist without going along to get along.<
Patrick Henry was a great American general, until he decided that
Britain was right and switched sides.
> Despite all this, you can not blame him and his family for having the
> foresight to take French citizenship. Israeli policies are basically
> suicidal. It's crazed Zionists such as you who are making tens of
> thousands follow the path of preparing for immigration.<
Some Jews will come, and some will leave. That's okay. Those who don't
really belong should leave, and make room for those who are true
Zionists. I know Israel and its bureaucrats and its people very well.
If not for many of them, I'd still be there. Those who are not true
Zionists should get the fuck out so that they do not obstruct those
who are for real.
jgarbuz
> On Dec 13, 9:29 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Patrick Henry was a great American general, until he decided that
> Britain was right and switched sides.<
Sorry, I meant Benedict Arnold, not Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry was a
super-patriotic, drunken Scots Irishman who hated the British with a
passion.
Kurt Knoll
shafted. What makes you think the Jews have more right to Palestine than the
Palestinians who have lived there for centuries. There is no such thing like
biblical or Jewish rights. Establishing Israel was only possible with the
help of the Americans and your corruptions.
Kurt Knoll.
"jgarbuz" <jga...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:c2b7e8d3-03c4-472b...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Kurt Knoll
"I'll Always Be Here" <aussi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9B73CD087A77ET...@87.106.137.111...
> "Kurt Knoll" <kno...@citywest.ca> wrote in
> news:pM_0l.647$O53.445@edtnps82:
>
>> When the Jewish sate is instrumental in invoking laws that restrict the
>> freedom speech and expression then it is high time we all care about.
>
>
> When knolls restrict our right to get answers from them by denying our
> freedom of speech and expression, then it is high time we all complain to
> the Canadian Government.
Yes you do have rights but not when you are dishonest and two faced. If you
do not understand what I am saying just consider the way you do alter
someone's replies.
Kurt Knoll.
I'll Always Be Here
> Why do you think the Arabs should compromise the are the once who get
> shafted.
You are german, therefore your idea of compromise is to bomb warsaw
What makes you think the Jews have more right to Palestine than
> the Palestinians who have lived there for centuries.
Because the Jews have lived in Israel for years. What makes you think you
think?
> There is no such thing like biblical or Jewish rights.
And there is no such thing as nazi or palestinian rights.
> Establishing Israel was only possible with the help of the Americans and
your corruptions.
Establishing the holocaust was only possible with the help of people like
you and your parents.
> Kurt Knoll.
>
> "jgarbuz" <jga...@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:c2b7e8d3-03c4-472b-997b-bd94decd5240
I'll Always Be Here
>
> "I'll Always Be Here" <aussi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B73CD087A77ET...@87.106.137.111...
>> "Kurt Knoll" <kno...@citywest.ca> wrote in
>> news:pM_0l.647$O53.445@edtnps82:
>>
>>> When the Jewish sate is instrumental in invoking laws that restrict
>>> the freedom speech and expression then it is high time we all care
>>> about.
>>
>>
>> When knolls restrict our right to get answers from them by denying our
>> freedom of speech and expression, then it is high time we all complain
>> to the Canadian Government.
>
> Yes you do have rights
Except to get answers from you.
but not when you are dishonest and two faced.
The only knoll here is you.
> If you do not understand what I am saying just consider the way you do
> alter someone's replies.
You have yet to show me altering a single word,line,sentence of your
replies. But that is to be expected...you are a knoll. Why must you knoll
in every post? Have you ever told the truth?
Patriot
> "Kurt Knoll" <kno...@citywest.ca> wrote in
> news:yW01l.379$xD3.276@edtnps83:
>
>> Why do you think the Arabs should compromise the are the once who get
>> shafted.
>
> You are german, therefore your idea of compromise is to bomb warsaw
>
>
> What makes you think the Jews have more right to Palestine than
>> the Palestinians who have lived there for centuries.
>
> Because the Jews have lived in Israel for years. What makes you think you
> think?
>
>
>
>> There is no such thing like biblical or Jewish rights.
>
>
> And there is no such thing as nazi or palestinian rights.
>
>
>> Establishing Israel was only possible with the help of the Americans and
> your corruptions.
>
>
> Establishing the holocaust was only possible with the help of people like
> you and your parents.
I suspect that the real Holocaust is yet to come and come it will.
You Zionist have well earned eradication.
I'll Always Be Here
> I'll Always Be Here wrote:
>> "Kurt Knoll" <kno...@citywest.ca> wrote in
>> news:yW01l.379$xD3.276@edtnps83:
>>
>>> Why do you think the Arabs should compromise the are the once who get
>>> shafted.
>>
>> You are german, therefore your idea of compromise is to bomb warsaw
>>
>>
>> What makes you think the Jews have more right to Palestine than
>>> the Palestinians who have lived there for centuries.
>>
>> Because the Jews have lived in Israel for years. What makes you think
you
>> think?
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is no such thing like biblical or Jewish rights.
>>
>>
>> And there is no such thing as nazi or palestinian rights.
>>
>>
>>> Establishing Israel was only possible with the help of the Americans
>> and your corruptions.
>>
>>
>> Establishing the holocaust was only possible with the help of people
>> like you and your parents.
>
> I suspect that the real Holocaust is yet to come and come it will.
> You Zionist have well earned eradication.
YOu goy are so inept and incompetent that for over 2000 years you've been
trying and what happens? You get weaker and the Jews get stronger. I
suppose there are many Israelis that would relish those of your ilk trying
something. The humor value alone would be worth it, not to mention the
possibility of manipulating some group of goy religious bigots and zealots
to nuke you.
Keep up the good work.
Kurt Knoll
"I'll Always Be Here" <aussi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> "Kurt Knoll" <kno...@citywest.ca> wrote in
> news:yW01l.379$xD3.276@edtnps83:
>
>> Why do you think the Arabs should compromise the are the once who get
>> shafted.
>
> You are german, therefore your idea of compromise is to bomb warsaw
And who was firing from the ground shooting at the German plains.
Kurt Knoll.
I'll Always Be Here
@edtnps82:
>
> "I'll Always Be Here" <aussi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B73E7909E8B7T...@87.106.137.111...
>> "Kurt Knoll" <kno...@citywest.ca> wrote in
>> news:yW01l.379$xD3.276@edtnps83:
>>
>>> Why do you think the Arabs should compromise the are the once who get
>>> shafted.
>>
>> You are german, therefore your idea of compromise is to bomb warsaw
>
> And who was firing from the ground shooting at the German plains.
You mean the planes that were bombing warsaw some 300 miles from the
german border? I hope everyone was.
L Alpert
"Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
news:2fee8$4941cb79$cf701ec3$52...@PRIMUS.CA...
Even a null message is far beyond your capabilities, you fucking twit.
L Alpert
A loser none the less. FFS, can't you think of anything else?
Patriot
No you can't suck his dick, Alpert.
>
>
American Eagle
What was that score again?
Hitler 6,000,000
Jews 1.
>
>
>
>
L Alpert
"American Eagle" <A...@USA.com> wrote in message
news:6qkif9F...@mid.individual.net...
And to think you and your ilk claim it never happened. WTF, can't you
make up your crack head mind?
>
>>
>>
>>
L Alpert
"Patriot" <Pat...@Mil.gob> wrote in message
news:6qkiceF...@mid.individual.net...
You poor soul, no matter how much you ask, I just don't swing in your
direction. Try cramer, she'd be more then willing.
>
>>
Gary Renzetti
Cisco
> By John Mearsheimer
> For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
> book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
> are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
> is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
> the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
> have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state.
It's not a "Jewish State", they have got you fooled just like the
rest of the American public.
> The situation
> got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
> Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner — both staunch defenders of Israel
> — wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
"Staunch defenders of Israel" That says a lot under the current
conditions.
>
> Let's hope that The Holocaust is Over
It is NOT over, which is the whole premise behind Zionist, Nazi,
Fascist, white supremeist influence both in Israel as well as in
the USA! If you think Obama will be a President long, you are
fooling yerself. The powers that be, simply won't allow it!
That's probably why GWBush was grinning ear to ear during
his transition speech! Personally, I never seen GWBush grin
so much.
<snip>
History is in the making, more than it ever was in the past!
--
When things get worse before they get better, don't tell them I didn't
warn you!
- www.cisco.co.nr
Kenneth McVay OBC
>
>"I'll Always Be Here" <aussi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Xns9B73E7909E8B7T...@87.106.137.111...
>> "Kurt Knoll" <kno...@citywest.ca> wrote in
>> news:yW01l.379$xD3.276@edtnps83:
>>
>>> Why do you think the Arabs should compromise the are the once who get
>>> shafted.
>>
>> You are german, therefore your idea of compromise is to bomb warsaw
>
> And who was firing from the ground shooting at the German plains.
Where are the plains in Germany, Frau Pikelhaube?
Leading Revisionist Scholar Werner Knoll upholds the high intellectual
standards observers expect from Holocaust "revisionists."
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/k/knoll-werner:
1. "Kurt an I know that in a war people get killed and fart ore just
fartin around. Get the message?" <Ivxrj.11861$FA.6990@pd7urf2no>,
February 10, 2008
2. "I am giving you and your other assholes a chance to get refucked.
How? I wish you are going to ask questions. You can it."
<DWZzj.52701$w94.17520@pd7urf2no>,, March 6, 2008
3. "I have a master plan to get you and your friends refucked and I
hope that assfucker like you and your turd 'Its all a bit strange'
will learn something. That is for now. You will get a chance to
learn something. You have here a Julius Sreicher?"
<RSWBj.76309$w94.16985@pd7urf2no>, March 12, 2008
<uhofj.93749$w94.19466@pd7urf2no>, March 18, 2008
4. "I have good news for you. You and go for are getting refucked. I
am not wasting my time with you. You will get refucked do."
<sGODj.93747$w94.70426@pd7urf2no>, Mar. 18, 2008
5. "I believe it is time for you to go for a piss and like to tell
that I am working my ass off to get thinks done. I have a
difficult time and some days I am going nowhere. You know what?
You make me sick. It looks to me that you are not ready for another
fuck up? It is time for me to give you a break"
<svmGj.122871$pM4.4017@pd7urf1no>, March 26, 2008
6. "It is nice to see you are fucking around. Now let me tell you and
your fried that I will come back for to get refucked. I have a
plan and I will work hard to teach you and others a lesson."
<qHFGj.126341$w94.48997@pd7urf2no>, March 27, 2008
<FGCIj.19866$rd2.3993@pd7urf3no>, April 2, 2008
--
'I fully accept this, it's a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas
chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it's useless to dispute it'.
(David Irving on Holocaust denial, as quoted by his Austrian lawyer)
The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org/
HHW
> On Dec 13, 9:29 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 9:57 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > There never will be any end to the "occupation" until 56 Muslim states
> > > fully recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist under international law, and
> > > apologize for putting their Mosques on the sacred soil of our Holy
> > > Temple mount - holocaust or no holocaust. With or without a holocaust,
> > > Israel is the NATIONAL SACRED HOMELAND OF THE JEWISH NATION, whether
> > > they live in exile or now live back in the land. As for Burg, he's
> > > just another Jewish renegade and traitor in a long line of such
> > > renegades and traitors going back to Moses, and even before to the
> > > brothers of Joseph who sold him into slavery to the Ishmaelites. He's
> > > pissed because his father was big fat man in the parliament, but he's
> > > a talkative nobody. When Jews feel slighted by their own, they become
> > > renegades or even traitors to their own.
>
> > Jack, you really ought to help your people get this over with.
>
> > Instead you use the same tactics as the Israeli government. In this
> > case it's the insistence on unattainable demands so as to defeat calls
> > for compromise. <
>
> Israel HAS compromised again and again and again since before the
> state was founded.
Being forced out of the Sinai was not a compromise.
But the Arab Muslims feel they will win in the long
> run, because of numbers or whatever, so why should they compromise?
Who cares why they should? That's not a relevant question. They're in
fact prepared to do so. They have said so many times. The Saudis have
brokered a rational proposal which all the Arab states will sign-off
on. The Palestinian leaderships have indicated they will accept it.
Israel wants more land and doesn't want an independent Palestinian
state. She won't accept the Saudi proposal as the basis for
discussions. A settlement is in American interests. Therefore, it is
time for the United States to withdraw its material support of Israel
on the basis that she refuses to respect our interests. Then it will
be completely up to her as to whether or not to continue these
aggressive policies.
As
> I've said countless times, until 56 Muslim states fully recognize
> ISrael's RIGHT to exist, and are prepared to accept reasonable
> proposals, there can be no permanent peace.
You keep changing your proposal. The last time you were demanding
apologies from the victims.
The Arabs insist on
> dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel must accept.
Give a break. Israel has 80 percent of Palestine and you whine like
this? They had to dig in their heels at some point.
ISrael they
> say, MUST go back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines). Israel
> must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again. Israel must take in the so-called
> "refugees."
Everyone knows the return of the refugees is a non-starter. Quit
bringing up that straw man. You simply don't want to negotiate.
Jerusalem should obviously be shared. There is no reason for Israel to
have more land than it has at present. You might as well just stop
pretending to negotiate. I'd like that as America could then draw her
own conclusions and follow her own interests.
EVen then, they say nothing about Israel's RIGHT to exist,
They'll agree to it. If they don't you can withdraw from the
negotiations. I would expect that and would be supportive. But it's
obvious that they are willing to do it now. It's at the center of the
Saudi Plan.
> but only speak about "normalizing" relatins, whatever the fuck that's
> supposed to mean.
It means recognition of Israel.
You'd think THEY won all the wars and Israel had to
> accept their terms on its knees like Japan and Germany after being
> bombed out and defeated. With me, no way Jose.
You'd' think that Israel had won THE WAR. You know it's not true. It
is not in a position to dictate a settlement.
>
> >You demand that 56 nations which have Muslim
> > populations not only agree that Israel has a right to exist but that
> > they must apologise for having been offended by the Nakba.<
>
> Not only that, but the Islamic religious councils (the Ulemas) must
> state that Israel is JEWISH SOIL, and not Islamic or Arab land. And
> issue final fatwas to that effect. Otherwise, to me there is no real
> peace to be had. It' s pure bullshit.
What's bullshit is America being dragged further into this mire by you
radical Zionists.
>
> > It's sad, indeed, that you see Jewish patriots in Israel such as Burg
> > as renegades. Worse than sad, self-defeating. Instead you should take
> > an anti-anxiety pill and then listen closely to what they say. <
>
> I don't have to listen to what they say, because I know what they say.
That's simply a declaration of a closed mind.
> The same things were said over 100 years ago.
Irrelevant. You need a settlement. America needs a settlement. You do
not have to have all of Jerusalem or any more out of the West Bank.
You need peace far more.
If the Zionists had
> listened to them, the JEws would still be in ghettos, those who
> survived.
Most surviving European Jews went to the U.S., not Israel after WWII.
It's obvious that it wasn't necessary to cram a Jewish state down the
throats of Muslims who had lived there continuously for 1,300 years.
It made ideological sense but that was it's Achilles heel.
And some Jews prefer being in ghettos. Some blacks preferred
> to be slaves than free, as being free meant responsibilities.
Making it in the States meant responsibilities. You're here by choice.
> >If
> > nothing else their courage is unquestionable. As to Burg's "nobody"
> > status, you should recall that he was the Speaker of the Knesset, an
> > IDF paratroop officer and comes from a prominent family which was
> > politically prominent before 1948. He's a very intelligent and
> > experienced man with good nationalist credentials. One can be a great
> > nationalist without going along to get along.<
>
> Patrick Henry was a great American general, until he decided that
> Britain was right and switched sides.
Patrick Henry?? Don't you mean Aaron Burr?
>
> > Despite all this, you can not blame him and his family for having the
> > foresight to take French citizenship. Israeli policies are basically
> > suicidal. It's crazed Zionists such as you who are making tens of
> > thousands follow the path of preparing for immigration.<
>
> Some Jews will come, and some will leave. That's okay. Those who don't
> really belong should leave, and make room for those who are true
> Zionists
True aggressors, occupiers and ethnic cleansers? Such a charming
image.
. I know Israel and its bureaucrats and its people very well.
> If not for many of them, I'd still be there. Those who are not true
> Zionists should get the fuck out so that they do not obstruct those
> who are for real.
And America should, therefore, get out of there too.
HHW
You're right. It wasn't Burr either, but Arnold. I still don't see any
parallel. People who differ in opinions aren't thereby traitors.
You've got a problem with those black and white rigidities, Jack.
HHW
> On Dec 10, 10:25 pm, Peace Power <studywarnomore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By John Mearsheimer
> > For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
> > book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
> > are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
> > is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
> > the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
> > have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state.
>
> It's not a "Jewish State", they have got you fooled just like the
> rest of the American public.
It's a figure of speech. Just live with it. Everyone knows it's not a
pure Jewish state.
>
> > The situation
> > got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
> > Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner — both staunch defenders of Israel
> > — wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
Did that surprise you?
>
> "Staunch defenders of Israel" That says a lot under the current
> conditions.
What does it say?
>
>
>
> > Let's hope that The Holocaust is Over
It ended in 1945,obviously.
>
> It is NOT over, which is the whole premise behind Zionist, Nazi,
> Fascist, white supremeist influence both in Israel as well as in
> the USA! If you think Obama will be a President long, you are
> fooling yerself. The powers that be, simply won't allow it!
Why not?
> That's probably why GWBush was grinning ear to ear during
> his transition speech! Personally, I never seen GWBush grin
> so much.
He grins all the time. He has a perma-grin. And a perma-smirk.
>
> <snip>
>
> History is in the making, more than it ever was in the past!
History is always in the making. It's meaningless to say it.
>
> --
> When things get worse before they get better, don't tell them I didn't
> warn you!
> -www.cisco.co.nr
You haven't told us anything.
jgarbuz
> On Dec 13, 10:36 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Israel HAS compromised again and again and again since before the
> > state was founded.
>
> Being forced out of the Sinai was not a compromise.<
Sure it was. DId Israel force the US out of Texas? BTW, the US forced
ISrael out of the Sinai THREE TIMES: in 1949; 1957;
and of course Jimmy Carter in 1977. Israel was forced to give up 60%
of its oil supplies, plus many airbases and strategic depth. For what,
a piece of paper? Would the US have agreed to something like that with
Texas and the Southeast to placate the Mexicans? The Egyptian army
today is many times stronger than it ever was since the Pharaohs,
thanks to US aid and training and arms over the last 30 years.
> But the Arab Muslims feel they will win in the long
> > run, because of numbers or whatever, so why should they compromise?
>
> Who cares why they should? That's not a relevant question. They're in
> fact prepared to do so. They have said so many times. The Saudis have
> brokered a rational proposal which all the Arab states will sign-off
> on.<
Not really. Where does it say Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST is recognized in
their Beirut proposal? It only speaks of "normalization," but with
Arabs I don't know what that means. To me their proposal is a
DIKTAT.Israel must return to the 1949 Armistice lines, and redivide
Jerusalem, in exchange for "normalization."
The Palestinian leaderships have indicated they will accept it.
> Israel wants more land and doesn't want an independent Palestinian
> state.<
Israel is entitled to ancient Jewish land it conquered in defensive
wars. THe US took land it never gave back from Mexico, Hawaii, and
even hangs on to Puerto Rico. What hypocrisy. It's unbelievable.
Israel has returned all of Sinai, all of Gaza, and has offered 90% of
the WEst Bank back as well. What more do they want? I'll tell you what
they want, to eventually overrun Israel, not militarily, but
demographically. I would flatout reject the Beirut proposal as a
DiKTAT, and walk out of the peace process altogether, until the Muslim
states recongize Israel's RIGHT to exist, and then return to the table
to hammer out a reasonable peace treaty. But not before.
> She won't accept the Saudi proposal as the basis for
> discussions. A settlement is in American interests. <
I refuse to accept Saudi DIKTATS. ANd FUCK AMERICA! AMerica and the
rest of the world should get the fuck out of the Middle East
ALTOGETHER and let Israel take care of its own business by itself, the
way it did between 1948 and 1967! WIthout America, Russia, China,
France and the rest of the meddlers, Israel would wipe its shoes with
its enemies. America is involved because of OIL! It forced Israel to
give back oil fields in the Sinai so that American Arab oil supplies
not be threatened in the Middle East by Israeli nukes! It's only
because of Russian involvement in Egypt, Syria, Iraq during the Cold
War, threatening US oil supplies, that caused the US to get involved
in the ME altogether.
Therefore, it is
> time for the United States to withdraw its material support of Israel
> on the basis that she refuses to respect our interests. <
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! And then we American Jews along with our
Evangelical friends will make sure that the also US cut off aid to the
Egyptians, the Palestinians, and arms sales to the Egyptians, Saudis,
the UAE as well. The US is the problem, not the solution. Israel wiped
its ass with the Arabs in 1948 and 1967 with ZERO US help. And could
do so again with Iran if it knew that no one else, especially AMerica,
Russia, China or anyone gets involved when ISrael wipes them out once
and for all. If you have a petition to get the US out, I'll be the
first to sign on.
Then it will
> be completely up to her as to whether or not to continue these
> aggressive policies.<
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
> The Arabs insist on
> > dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel must accept.
>
> Give a break. Israel has 80 percent of Palestine and you whine like
> this? They had to dig in their heels at some point.<
YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's useless
talking to you. Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
1937 for starters? At that time, the ARabs were offered to get 80% of
"Palestine" and rejected it. You know nothing and hence disqualified
to make any statements about Israel and its history. The truth is that
Islam will never accept a Jewish state of one block square.
jgarbuz
> On Dec 14, 11:10 am, Cisco <cisco2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 10:25 pm, Peace Power <studywarnomore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > By John Mearsheimer
> > > For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
> > > book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
> > > are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
> > > is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
> > > the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
> > > have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state.
>
> > It's not a "Jewish State", they have got you fooled just like the
> > rest of the American public.
>
> It's a figure of speech. Just live with it. Everyone knows it's not a
> pure Jewish state.<
Israel is the Jewish state, and nothing wrong with saying so. Yes,
ISrael is 25% non-JEwish citizens, but Ireland has many non-Irish
citizens as well, but I have no problem calling it the Irish state.
Dublin once had a Jewish mayor.
Cisco
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8eb04eaf-2362-4bde...@r32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 10, 11:47 pm, Peace Power <deadsoldiersno...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 10, 9:37 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> By John Mearsheimer
> For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
> book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
> are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
> is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
> the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
> got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
> - wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
>
> Let's hope that The Holocaust is Over
> is widely read and discussed, because it makes arguments that need to
> be heard and considered by Americans of all persuasions, but
> especially by those who feel a deep attachment to Israel. The fact
> that Burg wrote this book also matters greatly. He cannot be easily
> dismissed as a self-hating Jew or a crank, as he comes from a
> prominent Israeli family and has been deeply involved in mainstream
> Israeli politics for much of his adult life. Moreover, he clearly
> loves Israel.
>
> Burg makes many smart points in his book, but I would like to focus on
> what I take to be his central arguments. His core message is that
> Israel is in serious trouble at home and there is good reason to think
> that things could go horribly wrong in the future. He emphasizes that
> Israel has changed greatly since 1948. He quotes his mother on this
> point: "This country is not the country that we built. We founded a
> different country in 1948, but I don't know where it's disappeared."
> Israel today, he writes, "is frighteningly similar to the countries we
> never wanted to resemble." Talking about Israel's shift to the right
> over time, he makes the eye-popping observation that "Jews and
> Israelis have become thugs."
>
> Burg makes it clear that he is not equating Israel's past behavior
> with what happened in Nazi Germany, but he does see disturbing
> similarities between Israel and "the Germany that preceded Hitler."
> This raises the obvious question: could Israel end up going on a
> murderous rampage against the Palestinians? Burg thinks it is
> possible. He writes, "The notion that this cannot happen to us because
> our history as persecuted people makes us immune to hatred and racism
> is very dangerous. A look inside Israel shows that the erosion has
> begun." He even raises the possibility that there might be a civil war
> inside Israel, which "will be not a war between members of the Jewish
> people of different shades of beliefs, but an uncompromising struggle
> between good people and bad people anywhere."
>
> Burg is aware that many American Jews will dismiss his arguments
> because they are so at odds with the picture of Israel that they have
> in their heads. Accordingly, he reminds the reader: "I come from
> there, and my friends and relatives are still there. I listen to their
> talk, know their ambitions, and feel their heartbeats. I know where
> they are headed." And where they might be headed worries him greatly.
> Again, he fears that Israel will end up following in the footsteps of
> Germany, where "slow processes altered the perception of reality to
> the degree that insanity became the norm, and then we were
> exterminated. It happened in the land of poets and philosophers. There
> it was possible, and here too, in the land of the prophets. The
> establishment of a state run by rabbis and generals is not an
> impossible nightmare. I know how difficult this comparison is, but
> please open your ears, eyes, and hearts."
>
> Many American Jews think that Israel is in trouble today because of
> anti-Semitism or because it is surrounded by dangerous adversaries who
> threaten Israel's very existence. Israelis themselves, Burg reminds
> us, love to emphasize that "the entire world is against us." He
> dismisses these wrongheaded beliefs: "Today we are armed to the teeth,
> better equipped than any other generation in Jewish history. We have a
> tremendous army, an obsession with security, and the safety net of the
> United States . Anti-Semitism seems ridiculous, even innocuous
> compared with the strength of the Jewish people of today."
>
> For Burg, Israel's troubles are self-inflicted. Specifically, he
> maintains that the principal cause of Israel's problems is the legacy
> of the Holocaust, which has become omnipresent in Israeli life. "Not a
> day passes," he writes, "without a mention of the Shoah in the only
> newspaper I read, Ha'aretz." Indeed, Israeli children are taught in
> school that "we are all Shoah survivors." The result is that Israelis
> (and most American Jews for that matter) cannot think straight about
> the world around them. They think that everyone is out to get them,
> and that the Palestinians are hardly any different than the Nazis.
> Given this despairing perspective, Israelis believe that almost any
> means is justified to counter their enemies. The implication of Burg's
> argument is that if there was less emphasis on the Holocaust, Israelis
> would change their thinking about "others" in fundamental ways and
> this would allow them to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and
> lead a more peaceful and decent life.
>
> There is some truth in this defensive psychological argument, but Burg
> also provides much evidence for a different interpretation of how the
> Holocaust relates to Israeli life. In particular, he shows that
> Israeli society is plagued with a host of serious problems that are
> threatening to tear it apart and that the Holocaust is a "tool at the
> service of the Jewish people," which they use to protect Israel from
> criticism and to keep those centrifugal forces at bay. He identifies
> three basic problems: 1) Israelis are badly divided among themselves;
> "the Jewish world always had colossal disputes between colossal
> figures"; 2) the grave danger that large numbers of Israelis will
> emigrate to Europe and North America; and 3) the Occupation, which has
> had a corrupting effect on Israeli society and has drawn criticism
> from all around the globe. Playing the Holocaust card, Burg shows, is
> thought to be the best way to deal with these problems. He quotes the
> Israeli writer, Boaz Evron, to make this point: the Shoah "is our main
> asset nowadays. This is the only thing by which we try to unify the
> Jews. This is the only way to scare Israelis into not emigrating. This
> is the only thing by which they try to silence the gentiles." Of
> course, there is another instrument that Israel and its defenders
> frequently employ, which is the charge of anti-Semitism.
>
> To take my instrumentalist argument a step further, Burg provides
> evidence that the main reason that Israelis and their supporters
> constantly invoke the Holocaust is because of the Occupation, and the
> horrible things that Israel has done and continues to do to the
> Palestinians. The Shoah is the weapon that Israelis and their
> supporters in the Diaspora use to fend off criticism and to allow
> Israel to continue committing crimes against the Palestinians. Burg
> writes: "All is compared to the Shoah, dwarfed by the Shoah, and
> therefore all is allowed - be it fences, sieges, crowns, curfews, food
> and water deprivation, or unexplained killings. All is permitted
> because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to
> behave."
>
> The best evidence that Israel's obsession with the Holocaust is linked
> with the Occupation is found in Burg's discussion of the evolution of
> Israeli thinking about the Holocaust itself. He shows clearly that
> Israeli thinking about the Shoah has varied considerably over time.
> The leaders of the Yishuv "did very little in response to the
> annihilation of Europe's Jews" when it was happening. "They did not
> want to waste emotional resources that could otherwise be channeled
> into building the Jewish state." Moreover, Israelis did not focus much
> attention on the Holocaust in the first decade or so after 1948 and
> they showed surprisingly little sympathy for the survivors who came to
> Israel after the war. But all that changed in the 1960s, starting with
> the Eichmann trial, but picking up a head of steam after Israel
> conquered the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and began the Occupation. "To
> understand the wrong turn we took," he writes, "we need to go back to
> the 1960s, the Eichmann trial, the Six-Day War, and all that lies in
> between." He goes even further and notes that the 1990s - and remember
> that the First Intifada broke out in December 1987 - was the "decade
> of transition from the mythology of the early state to the obsessive
> journeys to the scene of the crime." The pattern seems clear: the
> Holocaust has been the main weapon that Israelis (and their supporter
> abroad) have employed to provide cover for the horrors Israel has
> inflicted on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
>
> All of this is to say that the best way to rescue Israel from its
> plight is not simply to get beyond the Holocaust, but to end the
> Occupation. Then, the need to talk incessantly about the Holocaust
> will be greatly reduced and Israel will be a much healthier and secure
> country. Sadly, there is no end in sight to the Occupation, and thus
> we are likely to hear more, not less, about the Holocaust in years
> ahead.
>
> http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/10/john-mearsheimer-invoking-th...
Ain't you got any words of yer own?
Cisco
>
> > On Dec 11, 2:53 am, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
>
> > > "jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e48b03a1-f5c5-45a2...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >fully recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist under international law,
>
> > > garbageguz.
> > > When has Ersatz israel ever given a flying fuck for international law or
> > > conventions?<
>
> > A lot more so than you Nazis and your Islamofascist wannabes.
>
> ZioNazi turds dwell at the bottom of the human food chain, garbuzz.
> Is-it-real consistently ranks at the top of most hated nations,
> ZioTurdnick
Are you now admitting that you are "Nazis and your
Islamofascist wannabes."
You never cease to amaze me!
--
If at first you don't succeed, QUIT! Have a beer, and try again later.
- www.cisco.co.nr
Cisco
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 9:57 pm,jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > There never will be any end to the "occupation" until 56 Muslim states
> > > apologize for putting their Mosques on the sacred soil of our Holy
> > > Temple mount - holocaust or no holocaust. With or without a holocaust,
> > > Israel is the NATIONAL SACRED HOMELAND OF THE JEWISH NATION, whether
> > > they live in exile or now live back in the land. As for Burg, he's
> > > just another Jewish renegade and traitor in a long line of such
> > > renegades and traitors going back to Moses, and even before to the
> > > brothers of Joseph who sold him into slavery to the Ishmaelites. He's
> > > pissed because his father was big fat man in the parliament, but he's
> > > a talkative nobody. When Jews feel slighted by their own, they become
> > > renegades or even traitors to their own.
>
> > Jack, you really ought to help your people get this over with.
>
> > Instead you use the same tactics as the Israeli government. In this
> > case it's the insistence on unattainable demands so as to defeat calls
> > for compromise. <
>
> run, because of numbers or whatever, so why should they compromise? As
> I've said countless times, until 56 Muslim states fully recognize
> ISrael's RIGHT to exist, and are prepared to accept reasonable
> dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel must accept. ISrael they
> say, MUST go back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines). Israel
> must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again. Israel must take in the so-called
> but only speak about "normalizing" relatins, whatever the fuck that's
> accept their terms on its knees like Japan and Germany after being
> bombed out and defeated. With me, no way Jose.
>
> > populations not only agree that Israel has a right to exist but that
> > they must apologise for having been offended by the Nakba.<
>
> Not only that, but the Islamic religious councils (the Ulemas) must
> state that Israel is JEWISH SOIL, and not Islamic or Arab land. And
> issue final fatwas to that effect. Otherwise, to me there is no real
> peace to be had. It' s pure bullshit.
>
> > as renegades. Worse than sad, self-defeating. Instead you should take
> > an anti-anxiety pill and then listen closely to what they say. <
>
> I don't have to listen to what they say, because I know what they say.
> listened to them, the JEws would still be in ghettos,those who
> to be slaves than free, as being free meant responsibilities.
>
> > nothing else their courage is unquestionable. As to Burg's "nobody"
> > status, you should recall that he was the Speaker of the Knesset, an
> > IDF paratroop officer and comes from a prominent family which was
> > politically prominent before 1948. He's a very intelligent and
> > experienced man with good nationalist credentials. One can be a great
> > nationalist without going along to get along.<
>
> Britain was right and switched sides.
>
> > foresight to take French citizenship. Israeli policies are basically
> > suicidal. It's crazed Zionists such as you who are making tens of
> > thousands follow the path of preparing for immigration.<
>
> Some Jews will come, and some will leave. That's okay. Those who don't
> really belong should leave, and make room for those who are true
> If not for many of them, I'd still be there. Those who are not true
> Zionists should get the fuck out so that they do not obstruct those
> who are for real.
The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
--
When you believe in things you don't understand, it's a sure sign of
being delusional.
- www.cisco.co.nr
Cisco
>
> > On Dec 10, 10:25 pm, Peace Power <studywarnomore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > By John Mearsheimer
> > > For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
> > > book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
> > > are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
> > > is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
> > > the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
> > > have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state.
>
> > It's not a "Jewish State", they have got you fooled just like the
> > rest of the American public.
>
> It's a figure of speech. Just live with it. Everyone knows it's not a
> pure Jewish state.
>
>
>
> > > The situation
> > > got so bad in the recent presidential campaign that journalists
> > > Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner — both staunch defenders of Israel
> > > — wrote pieces titled "Enough about Israel Already."
>
> Did that surprise you?
>
>
>
> > "Staunch defenders of Israel" That says a lot under the current
> > conditions.
>
> What does it say?
>
It says, it's hard to trust anybody. Do I have to spell it
out for you? If they are that staunch a defender of Israel,
then where does Judaism fit in? Especially since Israel
is NOT Jewish!
>
>
> > > Let's hope that The Holocaust is Over
>
> It ended in 1945,obviously.
>
If it did, then why all the antisemitism, and why are the powers
that be trying to destroy Judaism from within Israel?
>
>
> > It is NOT over, which is the whole premise behind Zionist, Nazi,
> > Fascist, white supremeist influence both in Israel as well as in
> > the USA! If you think Obama will be a President long, you are
> > fooling yerself. The powers that be, simply won't allow it!
>
> Why not?
Well hey, if you can't figure it out, then you must not be honest.
>
> > That's probably why GWBush was grinning ear to ear during
> > his transition speech! Personally, I never seen GWBush grin
> > so much.
>
> He grins all the time. He has a perma-grin. And a perma-smirk.
>
On the contrary, he is smiling all the time. It helps to keep his
eyes from blinking. But grinning is something GWBush hardly
ever does, and it tells mountains.
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > History is in the making, more than it ever was in the past!
>
> History is always in the making. It's meaningless to say it.
>
>
>
> > --
> > When things get worse before they get better, don't tell them I didn't
> > warn you!
> > -www.cisco.co.nr
>
> You haven't told us anything.
Yer simply not listening..
--
True wisdom does not lead you to ruin, rather it saves you from ruin.
- www.cisco.co.nr
Cisco
Not all that claim to be Jewish are Jewish, and the powers that
be in Israel are NOT Jewish.
Get yer head out of the sand, and learn the difference.
-
If it looks like a nut, sounds like a nut, and taste's like a nut, it
must be a nut.
- www.cisco.co.nr
fla...@verizon.net
On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Israel is the Jewish state, and nothing wrong with saying so. Yes,
> > ISrael is 25% non-JEwish citizens, but Ireland has many non-Irish
> > citizens as well, but I have no problem calling it the Irish state.
> > Dublin once had a Jewish mayor.
>
> Not all that claim to be Jewish are Jewish, and the powers that
> be in Israel are NOT Jewish.
>
> Get yer head out of the sand, and learn the difference.
He's right - but so are you: you 2 are discussing 2
somewhat different things. He is right: Israel *is*
the Jewishstate; you are right, not everyone there
is Jewish, & it's not a theocracy.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
> white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
Oh well - so much for thinking you had any brains.
> When you believe in things you don't understand, it's a sure sign of
> being delusional.
& hren you tell insane lies, it says so even more firmly.
Susan
Cisco
I concede, thanks for helping with peace. I don't know where
everyone stands on certain issues. While the state of Israel
is confusing to say the least. The state of usenet is even worse.
My apologies.
Cisco
Hehh, is that yer firm opinion, and if so why? Please explain yourself
and I will be glad to do the same.
Have you not heard of such tactics as defeat from within?
Who holds sway over Israel, Jews or Zionist extremists?
You tell me..
Personally I thought you already knew the difference.
DoD
> On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisco2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
> > white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
>
> Oh well - so much for thinking you had any brains.
Yep, there is certainly no shortage of kooks around here. Haven't you
learned
that yet?
Cisco
I'm sure you are one to judge what a Kook is!
--
"Pise con cuidado" - Step with Caution
- www.cisco.co.nr
fla...@verizon.net
Of course I knew that - but, until this moment, he actually had me fooled.
Susan
Cisco
Yer still being fooled, Susan.
>
> Susan
--
If everything God created "is good", then who is it that created Evil?
- www.cisco.co.nr
DoD
I put Crisco in the bit bucket a while back after it became apparent
it had the mentality of
a 12 year old.
Gary Renzetti
Actually, Arnold was the only patriot of the three. When the revolt
broke out, they were all British colonial citizens. One assumes that all
three swore an oath of allegiance to their country (Great Britain).
Arnold was the only one who remained loyal to his oath of allegiance. It
is Burr and Henry who are the traitors, (fortunately for the world perhaps).
last_per...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 15, 2:16 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 12:28 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisco2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
> > > > white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
>
> > > Oh well - so much for thinking you had any brains.
>
> > Yep, there is certainly no shortage of kooks around here. Haven't you
> > learned
> > that yet?
>
> I'm sure you are one to judge what a Kook is!
Doodoo and Gorilla Face Cohen here are the local village
idiots that nobody wants. Both are Gentile rejects who
cling to things jewish for some reason.
Eli Grubman
wrote:
That sounds vaguely 'anti-semitic'Ž. Are you a bigot?
Eli
Eli Grubman
>
>On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Israel is the Jewish state, and nothing wrong with saying so. Yes,
>> > ISrael is 25% non-JEwish citizens, but Ireland has many non-Irish
>> > citizens as well, but I have no problem calling it the Irish state.
>> > Dublin once had a Jewish mayor.
>>
>> Not all that claim to be Jewish are Jewish, and the powers that
>> be in Israel are NOT Jewish.
>>
>> Get yer head out of the sand, and learn the difference.
>
>
>He's right - but so are you: you 2 are discussing 2
>somewhat different things. He is right: Israel *is*
>the Jewishstate (sic); you are right, not everyone there
>is Jewish (sic), & it's not a theocracy.
>
>Susan
What the fuck do you know about 'Israel', you th*ck Ir*sh cunt?
Eli
Eli Grubman
>
>On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
>> white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
>
>Oh well - so much for thinking you had any brains.
>
>
>> When you believe in things you don't understand, it's a sure sign of
>> being delusional.
>
>& hren (sic) you tell insane lies, it says so even more firmly.
>
>Susan
& when you go all dyslexic, you are instantly recognisable as the
th*ck Ir*sh cunt.
Eli
Eli Grubman
wrote:
>On Dec 15, 7:13 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 15-Dec-2008, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 15, 12:28 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> > > On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisco2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
>> > > > white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
>>
>> > > Oh well - so much for thinking you had any brains.
>>
>> > Yep, there is certainly no shortage of kooks around here. Haven't you
>> > learned
>> > that yet?
>>
>> Of course I knew that - but, until this moment, he actually had me fooled.
>
>Yer still being fooled, Susan.
The rabbi fooled Suzy KKKohenr into thinking she could 'convert' into
the jew race. A $10K mistake!
Eli
Cisco
Doodoo isn't even Jewish, he is a Zionist, which makes him
a Fascist, and a LIAR too! It's people like him that are attempting
to undermine Judaism from the inside out. By pretending to
sympathize with the Jews, and misrepresenting them too!
Many people can't tell the difference between the two.
Thanks for the post..
--
"Vaya con Dios" - Go with God
- www.cisco.co.nr
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
and when you keep making an ass of yourself from 4:11 a.m. till late at
night, you are instantly recognizable as the abnormal psychopathic swine and
pathetic loser that you are.
Doctor Panta
--
Everyone check this: psychopath Grabmen glued to his computer today as from
4:11 a.m. again (MID: <7caek4d34mjn05d73...@4ax.com).
Watch the poor psycho with no life AT ALL making a complete ass of himself,
AGAIN, for the next FOURTEEN to TWENTY HOURS (and more) at a stretch!
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
> That sounds vaguely 'anti-semitic'®. Are you a bigot?
>
> Eli
That sounds vaguely retarded. Are you a retard, as everyone claims,
psychopath Grabmen?
Doctor Panta
--
Dumb Grabmen: http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4192/lonelygrabmenkg4.jpg
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, psychopathic Grabmen!
Interesting info indeed! LMAO!
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
The meaning of the above: the blathering idiot won't get out of the house
today again. It shows already at 04:47! LMAO!
HHW
> On Dec 15, 4:32 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Clip:
> > The Arabs insist on
> > > dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel must accept.
This is emotional blather. They're ready to settle.
> > Give a break. Israel has 80 percent of Palestine and you whine like
> > this? They had to dig in their heels at some point.<
>
> YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's useless
> talking to you. Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
> 1937 for starters?
You don't have to talk to me but I'm a provocative interlocutor.
"Dangerous" you once said.
The Peel Plan, a recommendation to the British government, was never
British policy. Its ideas were officially abandoned by the Foreign
Office and government as "unworkable" primarily because it involved
the forced transfer of large numbers of Arabs to be imposed by
BRITAIN. It would have involved the involuntary transfer of 1200 Jews
but of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. That's why it was unworkable.
The actual land distribution under the Peel Plan did make some sense
however and it would have physically separated the two states.
What seems to skew the Peel Plan in terms of land allocated to the two
parties is the Negev. You complain about Peel's 80/20 as being unfair,
yet at present it is 80/20 in your favor and you still complain. It is
evident you want it all. Your difficulty in the global political sense
is that the Israelis have squandered the entire reservoir of sympathy
due them as the result of the Holocaust and more.
At that time, the ARabs were offered to get 80% of
> "Palestine" and rejected it.
The "Arabs" didn't have a government. There was no one who could be
their legitimate negotiator, certainly not the clan leader Husseini.
The Jews had a strong but unofficial government and Ben-Gurion *would
have* accepted Peel but with the same mental reservations with which
he accepted the subsequent UN Partition Plan. It is without doubt that
he wanted all of Palestine but without the Palestinians and was
determined to take it by force and to expel them if necessary. There
was active Jewish planning going on at this very time (1937) to do it
unilaterally. Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish
"acceptance" of the UN Plan of 1939 which represented abandonment of
the idea of transfer and yet the immediate Jewish implementation of
the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which involved three
times the number of Arabs "transferred" than Peel had contemplated.
You know nothing and hence disqualified
> to make any statements about Israel and its history. The truth is that
> Islam will never accept a Jewish state of one block square.
Fine, Jack, but they're willing to do so now and you are not willing
to permit it to happen. You want it all just as did Ben-Gurion. Your
ideology is ethnic cleansing. Why not just admit it up front?
The British struggled to resolve the difficulties they themselves had
created under Balfour. The 1939 MacDonald study shows that they had
abandoned Peel's reliance on forced transfer, the single most
dangerous obstacle to a peace settlement:
The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after
Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over
it, was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville
Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for
Palestine was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine
governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers
in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish
immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a
regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000,
spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After
this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission
of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on
the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III)."
HHW
> On Dec 15, 4:41 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 11:10 am, Cisco <cisco2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10, 10:25 pm, Peace Power <studywarnomore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > By John Mearsheimer
> > > > For American readers, the great virtue of Avraham Burg's important new
> > > > book is that he says things about Israel and the Jewish people that
> > > > are hardly ever heard in mainstream discourse in the United States. It
> > > > is hard to believe how stunted and biased the coverage of Israel is in
> > > > the American media, not to mention the extent to which our politicians
> > > > have perfected the art of pandering to the Jewish state.
>
> > > It's not a "Jewish State", they have got you fooled just like the
> > > rest of the American public.
>
> > It's a figure of speech. Just live with it. Everyone knows it's not a
> > pure Jewish state.<
>
> ISrael is 25% non-JEwish citizens, but Ireland has many non-Irish
> citizens as well, but I have no problem calling it the Irish state.
> Dublin once had a Jewish mayor.
It is politically, but only by imposing it on 25% of its population by
force and creating two unequal classes of "citizens." The Zionist plan
probably looked "just" to the oppressed Jews of Eastern Europe, but it
was unworkable. It has created an immense mess which you seek to
prolong because like all ideologues you are committed to a false
theoretical solution to a real world political problem.
"Dr" Mengele Pantahose is a shitskin grik stalker 24/7 with no penis! LOL
*LOL*
Kalespera, "Dr" Mengele Pantahose! We LAUGH HYSTERICALLY at your
inept stalking in pidgin English in various newsgroups on THE Usenet!
Never has THE Usenet seen such pathetic stalking, you psychopathic
grik swine! No Nobel prize for you this year, a"h! I throw my shoe
at you! LOL
<Extremely Bugger Griks>
*plonk*
Eli
"Dr" Mengele Pantahose is a shitskin grik stalker 24/7 with no penis! LOL
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:47:13 -0500, Eli Grubman, the mental, emotional and
>sexual cripple, wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:26:13 -0800 (PST), Cisco <cisc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 15, 7:13 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> On 15-Dec-2008, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Dec 15, 12:28 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> > > On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisco2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > > The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
>>>> > > > white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
>>>>
>>>> > > Oh well - so much for thinking you had any brains.
>>>>
>>>> > Yep, there is certainly no shortage of kooks around here. Haven't you
>>>> > learned
>>>> > that yet?
>>>>
>>>> Of course I knew that - but, until this moment, he actually had me fooled.
>>>
>>>Yer still being fooled, Susan.
>>
>> The rabbi fooled Suzy KKKohenr into thinking she could 'convert' into
>> the jew race. A $10K mistake!
>>
>> Eli
>
>The meaning of the above: the blathering idiot won't get out of the house
>today again. It shows already at 04:47! LMAO!
>
>Doctor Panta
*LOL*
"Dr" Mengele Pantahose is a shitskin grik stalker 24/7 with no penis! LOL
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:45:44 -0500, Eli Grubman, the mental, emotional and
>sexual cripple, wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:28:00 GMT, fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On 15-Dec-2008, Cisco <cisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The State of Israel is a Joke. It is not Jewish, it is Zionist, Nazi,
>>>> white supremacists. Don't go blaming Israel on the Jews.
>>>
>>>Oh well - so much for thinking you had any brains.
>>>
>>>
>>>> When you believe in things you don't understand, it's a sure sign of
>>>> being delusional.
>>>
>>>& hren (sic) you tell insane lies, it says so even more firmly.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>
>> & when you go all dyslexic, you are instantly recognisable as the
>> th*ck Ir*sh cunt.
>>
>> Eli
>
>and when you keep making an ass of yourself from 4:11 a.m. till late at
>night, you are instantly recognizable as the abnormal psychopathic swine and
>pathetic loser that you are.
>
>Doctor Panta
*LOL*
dsharavi
> > > > The Arabs insist on
> > > > dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel must accept.
What HHW clipped from Jack's Dec 13, 8:36 pm post -- in response to
HHW's nonsensical comment blither about Israel's “insistence on
unattainable demands so as to defeat calls for compromise” -- was:
>>>>Israel HAS compromised again and again and again
>>>>since before the state was founded. But the Arab
>>>>Muslims feel they will win in the long run,
>>>>because of numbers or whatever, so why should
>>>>they compromise? As I've said countless times,
>>>>until 56 Muslim states fully recognize ISrael's
>>>>RIGHT to exist, and are prepared to accept reasonable
>>>>proposals, there can be no permanent peace. The
>>>>Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS
>>>>that Israel must accept. ISrael they say, MUST go
>>>>back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines).
>>>>Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again. Israel
>>>>must take in the so-called "refugees." EVen then,
>>>>they say nothing about Israel's RIGHT to exist,
>>>>but only speak about "normalizing" relations,
>>>>whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. You'd
>>>>think THEY won all the wars and Israel had to
>>>>accept their terms on its knees like Japan and
>>>>Germany after being bombed out and defeated.
>>>>With me, no way Jose.
That's what Jack posted, which HHW, being unable to face facts,
clipped.
> This is emotional blather.
Jack's blather contains salient facts which HHW, with his usual
allergy to facts, can't face. Among those facts are:
1) Israel HAS compromised again and again
2) Arab Muslims do feel they will win in the long run, because of
numbers [i.e., the
“demographic bomb” Terrorfat kept nattering about, while his
government encouraged Pallie females to have as many kids as they
could]
3) The Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel
must accept. Among those diktats are:
a) Israel MUST go back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines)
b) Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again
c) Israel must take in the so-called "refugees"
4) In exchange for the above, the Arabs say nothing about Israel's
RIGHT to exist, but only speak about "normalizing" relations.
5) The Arabs behave as if THEY won all the wars they started and
Israel must accept their terms on its knees like Japan and Germany
after being bombed out and defeated.
These are facts which HHW, knowing as little as he does about the
history of the region, and refusing to learn anything about it, can't
and won't face.
>They're ready to settle.
Twaddle. The only settlement the Palestine Arabs will accept is a
Judenrein Israel.
> > On Dec 15, 4:32 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Give a break. Israel has 80 percent of Palestine and you whine like
> > > this?
Israel never had 80 percent of Palestine. Currently, it's the Arabs
who possess something like 80 percent of Palestine, having been gifted
in 1923 with eastern Palestine, from which Jewish settlement was
barred. In 1948, Arabs seized the chunks of western Palestine which
had been allocated to the second Arab state in Palestine by UNGAR 181
-- which the Arabs rejected, as they had rejected every other form of
settlement.
> >They had to dig in their heels at some point.<
Arabs started throwing violent temper tantrums in 1920. They continued
pitching fits which escalated in violence over the years, once they
learned the lesson which the British taught them -- namely, that
violence against Jews makes for good diplomacy.
> > YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's useless
> > talking to you. Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
> > 1937 for starters?
Please don't give HHW any more than his antedeluvian brain can
handle.
What HHW snipped from Jack's reply:
“Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
1937 for starters? At that time, the ARabs were offered to
get 80% of "Palestine" and rejected it.”
Peel proposed the division of western Palestine and Transjordan into
three regions: a Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a
much larger Arab state in the rest of western Palestine and
Transjordan, and a permanently mandated British territory including
the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, with British
bases in Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. The Peel Report was taken
seriously enough by the Arabs for them to almost immediately launch
another campaign of violence against it – as well as by the Axis, for
them to begin supporting the Palestine Arabs against the British.
> You don't have to talk to me but I'm a provocative interlocutor.
> "Dangerous" you once said.
HHW's assertion that Jack called him “dangerous” sounds like H's oft-
repeated lie that I said “Don't you just love Benny Morris?”, and
another of his lies that I made a racist remark against Al Sharpton.
“Provocative interlocutor” is obviously Watsonese for “fertilizer
conveyor”.
> The Peel Plan, a recommendation to the British government, was never
> British policy.
Contrary to HHW's imaginings, the British government behaved as if the
Peel Commission's Report was to become policy. Certainly, the Arabs,
the Jews -- and the Axis powers -- considered it as such. It was taken
seriously by the Jews, and very seriously by Arabs.
In response to Peel. the Iraqi prime minister, Sayid Hikmat Suleiman,
warned Abdallah of Transjordan that “Any person venturing to act as
the head of such a [partitioned] state would be regarded as an outcast
throughout the Arab world and would induce the wrath of Moslems all
over the East.” The Damascus government held a Pan-Arab Congress at
Bludan in September 1937, attended by over five hundred Arab
delegates, which declared that the Jewish National Home and the
Palestine mandate must be terminated immediately in favor of a
sovereign Arab state; additionally, all Jewish immigration must be
halted forthwith, or else the Arab states would forego their relations
with Western democracies in favor of alliances with the Axis powers.
> Its ideas were officially abandoned by the Foreign
> Office and government as "unworkable" primarily because it involved
> the forced transfer of large numbers of Arabs to be imposed by
> BRITAIN. It would have involved the involuntary transfer of 1200 Jews
> but of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. That's why it was unworkable.
> The actual land distribution under the Peel Plan did make some sense
> however and it would have physically separated the two states.
HHW's foregoing comments underscores Jack's remark that HHW knows
nothing of the history of the region. The Peel Commission's plan was
never “offcially” abandoned. It was “reworked”.
After the release of the Peel Commission Report, Palestine Arabs --
this time aided by Nazi Germany -- renewed their terror campaign which
had led to the Peel Commission in the first place. As a result of Arab
violence, which far exceeded that of the previous two years, the
British dispatched another commission, the Palestine Partition
(Woodhead) Commission, ostensibly “to determine methods by which
partition would be carried out and to recommend boundaries for the
proposed Arab and Jewish states.” The Woodhead Commission arrived in
Palestine -- along with beefed-up British troop strength – at the time
when “Axis blackmail diplomacy in Europe obliged Whitehall to become
increasingly solicitous of Arab friendship along the Middle East
lifeline” and “the Chamberlain government revealed its willingness to
appease Hitler and Mussolini at the expense of other, smaller
nations.”
The Palestine Partition (Woodhead) Commission's Report was submitted
to parliament on 9th November 1938 (which was also the day of
Kristallnact), and declared, in sum, that the Peel partition plan was
“unfeasible.” The reasons given were that a large Arab minority would
remain in the projected Jewish state, and thereby restrict land
available for tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants; and that while a
Jewish state would conceivably become economically viable, an Arab
state, deprived of Jewish educational and technological superiority,
would not.
London officially endorsed the Woodhead Report. The Jews noted that
the Jewish state would comprise less than one-twentieth of western
Palestine, less than one-hundredth of the original Palestine mandated
area, and that most of the existing Jewish towns, villages and
landholdings would be granted to the Arab state. The Arabs rejected
the plan because it envisaged Jewish sovereignty, even in a
drastically attenuated Jewish state.
> What seems to skew the Peel Plan in terms of land allocated to the
two
> parties is the Negev. You complain about Peel's 80/20 as being unfair,
> yet at present it is 80/20 in your favor and you still complain.
Where did Jack complain about that? Moreover, where, exactly, did Peel
allocate land “80/20”, as HHW claims? Peel provided that for the
division of western Palestine and Transjordan into three regions: a
Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a much larger Arab
state in the rest of western Palestine and Transjordan, and a
permanently mandated British territory including the Jerusalem-
Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, and British bases in
Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. Since there was no way to divide
Palestine without handing over 400,000 Jews to Arab domination, or a
substantial Arab minority in Jewish territory, “a plan was therefore
LATER formulated for transferring land and exchanging populations on
the Greco-Turkish model of fourteen years before. In 1937, at any
rate, the notion that large irredentist minorities would remain on
either side of the partition line was never envisaged, except as a
consequence to be avoided.”
London announced its commitment to the Peel Plan simultaneously with
its publication on 7th July 1937. The League Mandates Commission was
unenthusiastic, and proposed that the period of apprenticeship be
extended for the near future. Abdallah and the Nashashibi faction were
not unfavorable, but the Mufti and the Arab Higher Committee rejected
it with contempt and formally turned it down. Within two months, with
aid from Nazi Germany, the Mufti renewed the previous violence,
murdering almost 3,000 Arabs in the process.
>It is evident you want it all.
Who is the “you” who “wants it all”? Jack? He wasn't alive at the time
of the Peel plan, and even though HHW was alive at the time, he was
certainly unaware of it. HHW is also unaware of the fact that it was
demonstrably the Arabs who wanted it all.
> Your difficulty in the global political sense
> is that the Israelis have squandered the entire reservoir of sympathy
> due them as the result of the Holocaust and more.
Israelis have certainly squandered the sympathy of “the world”,
whatever that may be, but it's certainly not as a result of the
Holocaust. What “sympathy” is “due” to Israelis anyway? I have no
automatic sympathy for them, except when I think how they, and they
alone, are held to standards to which no other nation on earth is held
– least of all Arab nations.
> > At that time, the Arabs were offered to get 80% of
> > "Palestine" and rejected it.
> The "Arabs" didn't have a government.
Neither did the Jews. But the Palestinian Jews had the Jewish Agency,
and the Palestine Arabs had the Arab Higher Committee and the Supreme
Moslem Council, both of which rejected the Peel Plan.
> There was no one who could be
> their legitimate negotiator, certainly not the clan leader Husseini.
On the contrary, Amin al-Husayni, as president of the Supreme Moslem
Council and chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, was one of the
“legitimate negotiators” demanded by the Palestine Arabs, who refused
to accept any other. From the Peel Commission through the Round Table
Conferences, the Anglo-American Inquiry Committee, and the UNSCOP, it
was the Husayni-dominated Arab Higher Committee which spoke for the
Palestine Arabs.
> The Jews had a strong but unofficial government and Ben-Gurion *would
> have* accepted Peel but with the same mental reservations with which
> he accepted the subsequent UN Partition Plan.
HHW imagines himself privy to Ben-Gurion's private deliberations.
>It is without doubt that
> he wanted all of Palestine but without the Palestinians and was
> determined to take it by force and to expel them if necessary.
It certainly is doubtful that B-G ever wanted “all of Palestine but
without the Palestinians[sic]”. Apart from the fact that Ben-Gurion
himself was a Palestinian – the Arabs considered themselves “southern
Syrians” -- none of his statements or writings show any indication
that he was determined to “take it by force and to expel” the Arabs.
>There
> was active Jewish planning going on at this very time (1937) to do it
> unilaterally.
Twaddle.
> Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish
> "acceptance" of the UN Plan of 1939 which represented abandonment of
> the idea of transfer and yet the immediate Jewish implementation of
> the Nakba,
Amazing! Not only does HHW imagine himself privy to Ben-Gurion's
private thoughts, HHW also imagines the existence of the United
Nations in 1939, a “UN Plan of 1939”, and Jewish acceptance thereof in
1939.
On 17th May 1939, the British government issued the notorious White
Paper, which established a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants to
Palestine for the next five years, plus another 25,000 Jewish
refugees. After five years and 75,000 new Jewish immigrants, further
Jewish immigration would be permitted only if the Arabs acquiesced.
Sale of land to Jews was prohibited immediately. The 1939 White Paper
“sealed off Palestine as a haven for all but an insignificant fraction
of Jewish refugees, and this at the moment when European Jewry faced a
mortal threat to its continued physical survival.”
Not exactly HHW's ““UN Plan of 1939” to which he imagines Jews
accepted.
> the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which involved three
> times the number of Arabs "transferred" than Peel had
>contemplated.
The Peel Plan provided for no “transfer”. That came later. And the
only “ethnic cleansing” which began in 1939 was the “ethnic cleansing”
of the Jews of Europe.
> > You know nothing and hence disqualified
> > to make any statements about Israel and its history.
That would be obvious from only HHW's usual blither on Jews, Judaism,
and Israel, even without his imaginary “UN Plan of 1939” and Jewish
acceptance thereof.
> >The truth is that
> > Islam will never accept a Jewish state of one block square.
> Fine, Jack, but they're willing to do so now
They're not. The Arabs want it all.
> and you are not willing
> to permit it to happen. You want it all just as did Ben-Gurion.
Unless HHW is stating that B-G lied for decades, and that he had some
secret agenda which he revealed to nobody on this planet (except,
perhaps, his mother), Ben-Gurion made it clear in numerous statements
from 1921 onwards that he did not want all of Palestine, and that he
believed in the possibility of direct agreement with the Arabs.
>Your ideology is ethnic cleansing. Why not just admit it up front?
Because it isn't. It's HHW's ideology – and that of the Arabs, too, of
course, who have proven it for 13 centuries.
> The British struggled to resolve the difficulties they themselves had
> created under Balfour.
Balfour created no difficulties. It was issued in order to gain Jewish
support during WWI. In fact, the Kaiser's government was
contemplating issuing something along the same lines as Balfour, but
the British beat them to it.
> The 1939 MacDonald study shows that they had
> abandoned Peel's reliance on forced transfer, the single most
> dangerous obstacle to a peace settlement:
There was some “1939 MacDonald study”? Was this part of HHW's “UN Plan
of 1939?”
As above, the Peel Report placed no “reliance on forced transfer”, as
HHW claims.
> The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after
> Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over
> it,
Early in 1938, Malcolm MacDonald, former dominion secretary [and son
of Ramsay MacD], replaced Ormsby-Gore as Colonial Secretary. MacDonald
immediately ordered the Government of Palestine to impose even tighter
restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine. On 9th November 1938
the Woodhead Report (the Palestine Commission Partition Report) was
submitted to parliament. “It declared, in sum, that the Peel plan was
unfeasible, and based this assertion upon the huge Arab minority that
would remain within the projected Jewish state and the restricted land
available there for the settlement of tens of thousands of new Jewish
immigrants.”
No reference to “forced transfer” or “ethnic cleansing” there.
“While a Jewish state conceivably might become economically viable,
this was unlikely to be true of a Palestine Arab state deprived of a
Jewish hinterland. What, then, was the solution? The [Woodhead] report
professed to find in it a “modification” of partition by which an Arab
state and a Jewish state (drastically attenuated) would be linked
together in an enforced economic union, both nations to be deprived of
sovereignty in all matters of economic policy.”
> was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville
> Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for
> Palestine was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine
> governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers
“MacDonald revealed the contours of the government's emerging
Palestine formula on March 15 [1939]. He proposed that Jewish
immigration be limited to 75,000 during the next five years, with
further immigration to depend upon Arab consent. Land sales would be
similarly curtailed. His one concession to the Zionists was to DROP
the idea of an independent Palestine with an Arab majority government.
Although both sides rejected MacDonald's formula, it was quite obvious
by then that the Jewish position had drastically worsened.”
> in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish
> immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a
> regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000,
> spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After
> this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission
> of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on
> the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III)."
Apparently there are large areas in which HHW's imagination, like his
historical knowledge, is severely restricted.
“In Britain itself, the White Paper met with serious criticism on all
sides. The press was almost uniformly hostile...No criticism was as
ascerbic, however, as Churchill's. 'THis pledge as a home for
refugees, of an asylum, was not made to the Jews of Palestine,' he
emphasized, 'but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that vast, unhappy
mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering Jews whose intense,
unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home. That is
the pledge which was given, and that is the pledge which we are now
asked to break.' Several days later, at its annual conference in
Southport, the British Labor party repudiated the White Paper, thereby
endorsing the stand of its members in Parliament.”
[The White Paper passed in Commons with 268 votes in favor, 179 votes
against, and 110 absentions]
“The Chamberlain government's stringently anti-Zionist interpretation
of the mandate required the approval not only of Parliament, but also
of the League Permanent Mandates Commission...The members of the
Commission did not accept [MacDonald's] argument. In their report to
the League Council, they declared that 'the policy set out in the
White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in
agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had
placed upon the Palestine Mandate.'”
“The MacDonald White Paper by and large succeeded in keeping the Arab
world quiet, and this was its rationale.”
Like the Evian Conference of 1938 and the Woodhead Report, the White
Paper showed Hitler “that 'the Jewish question' could not be solved by
emigration and that a different sort of solution had to be found.”
Deborah
dsharavi
> > Israel is the Jewish state, and nothing wrong with saying so. Yes,
> > ISrael is 25% non-JEwish citizens, but Ireland has many non-Irish
> > citizens as well, but I have no problem calling it the Irish state.
> > Dublin once had a Jewish mayor.
On Dec 16, 11:13 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is politically, but only by imposing it on 25% of its population by
> force and creating two unequal classes of "citizens."
As opposed to, what, making the state as "Arabrein" as Saudi Arabia is
Judenrein?
> The Zionist plan
> probably looked "just" to the oppressed Jews of Eastern Europe, but it
> was unworkable. It has created an immense mess which you seek to
> prolong because like all ideologues you are committed to a false
> theoretical solution to a real world political problem.
No doubt HHW would prefer the generous "Sunni Muslim Only" policies of
"Our Partner in Peace for 62 Years".
Deborah
Kurt Knoll
middle east area. There will never be any peace for as long the Jews are
string the pot of aggression to take away more right of the Palestinians
existence . There shall never be a reward for your falsehood and hate
mongering.
Kurt Knoll.
"dsharavi" <dsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6ad6d3e-d39c-407b...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
dsharavi
> There shall never be a reward for your falsehood and hate
> mongering.
> Kurt Knoll.
There shall never be any hope of your responding to facts with any
semblance of intelligence, either.
Deborah
> "dsharavi" <dshr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Palestine without handing over 400,000 Jews to Arab domination, or a ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll Always Be Here 17/12/08
> Why should the Arab Muslims compromise
To insure that their children aren't eaten by hungry germans
> you are the only problem of the middle east area.
Have you ever told the truth?
There will never be any peace for as long the Jews are
> string the pot of aggression to take away more right of the Palestinians
> existence .
There will never be any peace as long as the knolls are stirring the pot
of aggression, intimidation and knollohoaxing to take away the right of
Israelis existence.
> There shall never be a reward for your falsehood and hate mongering.
Yes, sylvia stolz is university slime
> Kurt Knoll.
>
> "dsharavi" <dsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c6ad6d3e-d39c-407b-bc7c-ead8e3fe7608
Peace Power
::> We're zionists out in Space,
::> We're zooming around, destroying the Hebrew race,
::> We're zionists out in Space,
::> we make trouble appear, we're a disgrace.
::> When anti-zionists attack us,
::> We'll give them a smack, an' fall flat on our face.
::> We're zionists out in Space,
::> We're zooming around, destroying the Hebrew race.
::> Deborah
Photo of zionist, drag-queen, Sharavi/Rosen:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xyFBCJsSkts/SMijIh-3LMI/AAAAAAAAAA0/sSplySLzHmw/s1600-h/Edward+M.+Rosen.jpg
mirellewatch
Gary Renzetti
<snip crap>
My Dear Asshole, you actually had it right with your first post. No
reason to post again.
mirellewatch
Not repeating myself, and yes, I did have it right. Thanks.
Gary Renzetti
>>
>> <snip crap>
Your revised title says it all. You certainly are an idiot.
Peace Power
> mirellewatch.blogspot.com/
You're forging Sharavi/Rosen, Steve Horn.
Convicted criminal threatens to kill WordPress blogger:
Caduceus Says:
November 27, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I know where you live raghead. I know you phone number you stupid doon
coon. I know where your family is at. You shouldn’t joke about dying
American Service Men you dumb ass sand nigger. I have a Ruger P90 .45
automatic with 10 bullets with your name on them Raghead. I’m GOD, I
decide who lives and who dies and you die raghead. You’re a dead doon
coon walking.
40-gun cache
Steven Craig Horn: “Remember I’m GOD. I decide who lives and who dies
and your two boys die.”
“Remember I have a .45 automatic and can take your b…..d sons out.”
“I am God, and I also still have my Ruger P-90 and it has a bullet
with your name on it.”
http://www.mwcsun.com/local/local_story_050094629.html
City man faces charges of using computer to threaten, harass
http://www.newsok.com/article/3014189/
Aliyaallzionists Says:
December 3, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Re-post. It appears that Steve Horn did not take the advice of his
parole officer.
I had deleted the following after speaking with his parole officer; he
has violated the conditions he agreed to, so I am re-posting his
threat to me along with my response at the time in order to make a
public record in case he acts on the threat, there will be a record of
the threat here, in case my family or me is harmed or killed:
Caduceus Says:
November 27, 2008 at 9:28 pm e
I know where you live raghead. I know you phone number you stupid doon
coon. I know where your family is at. You shouldn’t joke about dying
American Service Men you dumb ass sand nigger. I have a Ruger P90 .45
automatic with 10 bullets with your name on them Raghead. I’m GOD, I
decide who lives and who dies and you die raghead. You’re a dead doon
coon walking.
_______________________
aliyaallzionists Says:
November 28, 2008 at 1:46 am e
“Caduceus” is STEVE HORN:
STEVEN CRAIG HORN, 1836 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73106 USA
405-524-0576
Steve Horn is out on parole for threatening a woman and her child with
the SAME THREATS!!!
He was given a five year sentence that he only served five months of.
IF he threatens anyone again, he is supposed to serve the original
five year sentence.
Here it is folks — the same threats!
Kenneth McVay OBC, and others - who continually post my address, phone
number etc… are complicit in this crime.
Kooks like Steve Horn get the information and run with it.
Crime Watch Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:20 am
Steve Horn’s parole officer: Jacquith Farris
E-mail address: jacquit...@doc.state.ok.usa
Phone number: (405) 962-0420
Crime Watch Says:
December 7, 2008 at 12:27 am
Detective Olan Boydston:
Spencer Police Department
8300 NE 36th St. Spencer, OK - (405) 771-3798
Crime Watch Says:
December 22, 2008 at 7:33 am
OK, FBI agent, Internet operation facility:
James Funderbrick
405-290-7770
HHW
> On Dec 16, 10:58 am,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Clip:
> > On Dec 15, 7:51 am, jgarbuz <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > > > > The Arabs insist on
> > > > > dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel must accept.
>
> unattainable demands so as to defeat calls for compromise” -- was:
>
> >>>>Israel HAS compromised again and again and again
> >>>>since before the state was founded. But the Arab
> >>>>Muslims feel they will win in the long run,
> >>>>because of numbers or whatever, so why should
> >>>>they compromise? As I've said countless times,
> >>>>until 56 Muslim states fully recognize ISrael's
> >>>>RIGHT to exist, and are prepared to accept reasonable
> >>>>proposals, there can be no permanent peace. The
> >>>>Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS
> >>>>that Israel must accept. ISrael they say, MUST go
> >>>>back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines).
> >>>>Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again. Israel
> >>>>must take in the so-called "refugees." EVen then,
> >>>>they say nothing about Israel's RIGHT to exist,
> >>>>but only speak about "normalizing" relations,
> >>>>whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. You'd
> >>>>think THEY won all the wars and Israel had to
> >>>>accept their terms on its knees like Japan and
> >>>>Germany after being bombed out and defeated.
> >>>>With me, no way Jose.
>
> clipped.
>
> > This is emotional blather.
>
> allergy to facts, can't face. Among those facts are:
> 1) Israel HAS compromised again and again
Only under pressure from the U.S. when it was forced to take our
interests into account. And don't forget that the Israeli State was
created by mass terror.
> 2) Arab Muslims do feel they will win in the long run, because of
> numbers [i.e., the
> “demographic bomb” Terrorfat kept nattering about, while his
> government encouraged Pallie females to have as many kids as they
> could]
So do I and most Israelis fear that result.
You conflate two aspects of Zionism's purely ideological "problem,"
i.e., it's presumed relevance to Arab Muslims in general and to
"Pallies" in particular.
The most feared ideological bogeyman in the "Jewish state" is
demographic. But the same principle would apply to the region as a
whole. The latter is one of the reasons I believe that either the U.S.
must withdraw its support of Israel or force a settlement, both of
which would probably have the same result.
> 3) The Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel
> must accept. Among those diktats are:
> a) Israel MUST go back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines)
> b) Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again
> c) Israel must take in the so-called "refugees"
"a" makes eminent sense as it's in the American interest that the
matter be settled. And the American interest is, of course,
preeminent. You're an American and surely should understand that.
"b" Horrors, Israel must redivide Jerusalem!? AMERICA can't pay THAT
price! No, surely not; tens of thousands more non-Jewish Americans
should die to prevent THAT from happening to say nothing of enduring
another depression. We Americans couldn't have Jerusalem become an
international city either.
"c" But that's not an issue. Everyone agrees the plan is to have the
American middle class taxpayer finance the compensation of Palestinian
refugees as an alternative to honoring the right of return. It is
specious to keep raising the issue until it is at least tested in the
first honest negotiations on the West Bank ever indulged by the
israelis. You know, the ones done under an American ultimatum.
> 4) In exchange for the above, the Arabs say nothing about Israel's
> RIGHT to exist, but only speak about "normalizing" relations.
They will never give up questioning Israel's right to exist until
Jewish Zionists give up denying Palestine's right to exist. When they
are offered bilaterally and in good faith these matters will be
tested. In the meantime the Israeli Zionists just hate ANY American
inclination to talk with the Palestinians. That's not the behavior of
people who want to negotiate.
> 5) The Arabs behave as if THEY won all the wars they started and
> Israel must accept their terms on its knees like Japan and Germany
> after being bombed out and defeated.
The most important war, the original war against the Palestinian
people, was begun by the Jews in 1947. The Arab invasion of Palestine
was a counter-attack. This is beyond question simply as a matter of
chronology.
> These are facts whichHHW, knowing as little as he does about the
> history of the region, and refusing to learn anything about it, can't
> and won't face.
As I suggested the other evening you wouldn't know a fact if it bit
you in the arse.
> >They're ready to settle.
>
> Twaddle. The only settlement the Palestine Arabs will accept is a
> Judenrein Israel.
Pure, dishonest hasbara. You want the American people to *believe that
without testing it* with serious negotiations insisted on by our
government. Only if Americans continue to be hoodwinked will Israel be
able to stay continuously on the offensive in the ethnic cleansing of
Palestine without pressure and without losing her dole. Zionist policy
adds up to greed for the last scrap of Palestine and the denial of a
viable Palestinian state. This is blatantly contrary to the American
interest yet the lobby has such a strangle hold on our Congress that
we are unable to correct our policy.
> > > On Dec 15, 4:32 am,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Give a break. Israel has 80 percent of Palestine and you whine like
> > > > this?
>
> Israel never had 80 percent of Palestine. Currently, it's the Arabs
> who possess something like 80 percent of Palestine, having been gifted
> in 1923 with eastern Palestine, from which Jewish settlement was
> barred.
You know what Palestine means today, Deborah. This is a red herring.
And in any event diaspora Jews had no claim to these additional lands.
None whatever. You can't generate an irredentist claim from thin air
and expect it to be taken seriously.
In 1948, Arabs seized the chunks of western Palestine which
> had been allocated to the second Arab state in Palestine by UNGAR 181
> -- which the Arabs rejected, as they had rejected every other form of
> settlement.
Therefore, it belongs to European Jews?
>
> > >They had to dig in their heels at some point.<
>
> Arabs started throwing violent temper tantrums in 1920.
Oh, you now demonize them as children?
They continued
> pitching fits which escalated in violence over the years, once they
> learned the lesson which the British taught them -- namely, that
> violence against Jews makes for good diplomacy.
Bullshit. Violence against Arabs made for good, traditional Zionism.
>
> > > YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's useless
> > > talking to you. Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
> > > 1937 for starters?
>
> Please don't giveHHWany more than his antedeluvian brain can
> handle.
Your dominant organ is the spleen, Deborah.
>
> WhatHHWsnipped fromJack'sreply:
> “Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
> 1937 for starters? At that time, the ARabs were offered to
> get 80% of "Palestine" and rejected it.”
>
> Peel proposed the division of western Palestine and Transjordan into
> three regions: a Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a
> much larger Arab state in the rest of western Palestine and
> Transjordan, and a permanently mandated British territory including
> the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, with British
> bases in Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. The Peel Report was taken
> seriously enough by the Arabs for them to almost immediately launch
> another campaign of violence against it – as well as by the Axis, for
> them to begin supporting the Palestine Arabs against the British.
But Deborah. You don't respond to my argument. You clip it instead.
> > You don't have to talk to me but I'm a provocative interlocutor.
> > "Dangerous" you once said.
>
> HHW'sassertion thatJackcalled him “dangerous” sounds like H's oft-
> repeated lie that I said “Don't you just love Benny Morris?”, and
> another of his lies that I made a racist remark against Al Sharpton.
> “Provocative interlocutor” is obviously Watsonese for “fertilizer
All true, Deborah. Here you know the truth and it still bites you in
the ass.
> conveyor”.
>
> > The Peel Plan, a recommendation to the British government, was never
> > British policy.
>
> Contrary toHHW'simaginings, the British government behaved as if the
> Peel Commission's Report was to become policy.
Really now. Can you prove that? Nothing like it appears in the
historical sketches I've read on this subject.
Certainly, the Arabs,
> the Jews -- and the Axis powers -- considered it as such.
Even after it was rejected formally by the British government as
unworkable and then replaced with a new and profoundly different
analysis two years later. You make up this merde as you go along.
It was taken
> seriously by the Jews, and very seriously by Arabs.
Nonsense. The Jews had no intention whatever of abiding by the Peel
plan. They are to be judged by their behavior and their history. And
by history I mean up to the present time, not just the Nakba.
> In response to Peel. the Iraqi prime minister, Sayid Hikmat Suleiman,
> warned Abdallah of Transjordan that “Any person venturing to act as
> the head of such a [partitioned] state would be regarded as an outcast
> throughout the Arab world and would induce the wrath of Moslems all
> over the East.”
Allies often have difficulties in co-ordination. In any event this is
not 1937.
The Damascus government held a Pan-Arab Congress at
> Bludan in September 1937, attended by over five hundred Arab
> delegates, which declared that the Jewish National Home and the
> Palestine mandate must be terminated immediately in favor of a
> sovereign Arab state; additionally, all Jewish immigration must be
> halted forthwith, or else the Arab states would forego their relations
> with Western democracies in favor of alliances with the Axis powers.
Nor so clever as they might have thought in 1937, eh?
> > Its ideas were officially abandoned by the Foreign
> > Office and government as "unworkable" primarily because it involved
> > the forced transfer of large numbers of Arabs to be imposed by
> > BRITAIN. It would have involved the involuntary transfer of 1200 Jews
> > but of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. That's why it was unworkable.
> > The actual land distribution under the Peel Plan did make some sense
> > however and it would have physically separated the two states.
>
> HHW'sforegoing comments underscoresJack'sremark thatHHWknows
> nothing of the history of the region. The Peel Commission's plan was
> never “offcially” abandoned. It was “reworked”.
>
> After the release of the Peel Commission Report, Palestine Arabs --
> this time aided by Nazi Germany -- renewed their terror campaign which
> had led to the Peel Commission in the first place. As a result of Arab
> violence, which far exceeded that of the previous two years, the
> British dispatched another commission, the Palestine Partition
> (Woodhead) Commission, ostensibly “to determine methods by which
> partition would be carried out and to recommend boundaries for the
> proposed Arab and Jewish states.” The Woodhead Commission arrived in
> Palestine -- along with beefed-up British troop strength – at the time
> when “Axis blackmail diplomacy in Europe obliged Whitehall to become
> increasingly solicitous of Arab friendship along the Middle East
> lifeline” and “the Chamberlain government revealed its willingness to
> appease Hitler and Mussolini at the expense of other, smaller
> nations.”
Delightful, before WW II the Arabs should have chosen the colonial,
Zionist Jews of Israel over the Germans in the world balance of power?
Perhaps you can tell us why. Would it be that the Germans were racist
and the Jewish immigrants were not?
>
> The Palestine Partition (Woodhead) Commission's Report was submitted
> to parliament on 9th November 1938 (which was also the day of
> Kristallnact), and declared, in sum, that the Peel partition plan was
> “unfeasible.” The reasons given were that a large Arab minority would
> remain in the projected Jewish state, and thereby restrict land
> available for tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants; and that while a
> Jewish state would conceivably become economically viable, an Arab
> state, deprived of Jewish educational and technological superiority,
> would not.
A racist conclusion if I ever saw one.
> London officially endorsed the Woodhead Report. The Jews noted that
> the Jewish state would comprise less than one-twentieth of western
> Palestine, less than one-hundredth of the original Palestine mandated
> area, and that most of the existing Jewish towns, villages and
> landholdings would be granted to the Arab state. The Arabs rejected
> the plan because it envisaged Jewish sovereignty, even in a
> drastically attenuated Jewish state.
Like children fighting over a toy.
> > What seems to skew the Peel Plan in terms of land allocated to the
> two
>
> > parties is the Negev. You complain about Peel's 80/20 as being unfair,
> > yet at present it is 80/20 in your favor and you still complain.
>
> Where didJackcomplain about that?
He complains about Israel not being given or having succeeded in
taking the West Bank. What could you conclude?
Moreover, where, exactly, did Peel
> allocate land “80/20”, asHHWclaims?
I think that was Jack's assessment. Why shouldn't I use it?
Peel provided that for the
> division of western Palestine and Transjordan into three regions: a
> Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a much larger Arab
> state in the rest of western Palestine and Transjordan (i.e., the West Bank HHW), and a
> permanently mandated British territory including the Jerusalem-
> Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, and British bases in
> Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. Since there was no way to divide
> Palestine without handing over 400,000 Jews to Arab domination, or a
> substantial Arab minority in Jewish territory, “a plan was therefore
> LATER formulated for transferring land and exchanging populations on
> the Greco-Turkish model of fourteen years before. In 1937, at any
> rate, the notion that large irredentist minorities would remain on
> either side of the partition line was never envisaged, except as a
> consequence to be avoided.”
The source I consulted said that the Peel Plan envisaged the transfer
of only 1,200 Jews but hundreds of thousands of Arabs. My impression
was that no Jews would remain in in the Arab sector. But perhaps I
misremember?
>
> London announced its commitment to the Peel Plan simultaneously with
> its publication on 7th July 1937.
Perhaps, but why does my source say that Peel was rejected as
unfeasible? And then, why did the 1939 study opt for a single bi-
national state? Then, ultimately, the UN opted for two binational
states. Can't one see here a struggle over the implications of ethnic
cleansing as public policy? And which policy did the Jews decide to
implement unilaterally? The aggressively Arabrein solution.
The League Mandates Commission was
> unenthusiastic, and proposed that the period of apprenticeship be
> extended for the near future. Abdallah and the Nashashibi faction were
> not unfavorable, but the Mufti and the Arab Higher Committee rejected
> it with contempt and formally turned it down. Within two months, with
> aid from Nazi Germany, the Mufti renewed the previous violence,
> murdering almost 3,000 Arabs in the process.
We should be very proud, Deborah. We've killed a million Iraqis.
> >It is evident you want it all.
>
> Who is the “you” who “wants it all”?Jack?
Jacks a Zionist as are the Israeli ruling clique. Both want it all. So
do you.
He wasn't alive at the time
> of the Peel plan,
Irrelevant. "All" has nothing to do with Peel.
and even thoughHHWwas alive at the time, he was
> certainly unaware of it.HHWis also unaware of the fact that it was
> demonstrably the Arabs who wanted it all.
Irrelevant too. We become "aware" even of recent events in significant
detail through the reading of memoirs, histories, journals and at the
most shallow level, journalism.
>
> > Your difficulty in the global political sense
> > is that the Israelis have squandered the entire reservoir of sympathy
> > due them as the result of the Holocaust and more.
>
> Israelis have certainly squandered the sympathy of “the world”,
> whatever that may be, but it's certainly not as a result of the
> Holocaust. What “sympathy” is “due” to Israelis anyway? I have no
> automatic sympathy for them, except when I think how they, and they
> alone, are held to standards to which no other nation on earth is held
> – least of all Arab nations.
I don't believe you.
>
> > > At that time, the Arabs were offered to get 80% of
> > > "Palestine" and rejected it.
> > The "Arabs" didn't have a government.
>
> Neither did the Jews. But the Palestinian Jews had the Jewish Agency,
> and the Palestine Arabs had the Arab Higher Committee and the Supreme
> Moslem Council, both of which rejected the Peel Plan.
The Jews had a quasi government. There was more to it than the Jewish
Agency. At worst they were much better organized than the
Palestinians. That's commonly understood among the historians.
> > There was no one who could be
> > their legitimate negotiator, certainly not the clan leader Husseini.
>
> On the contrary, Amin al-Husayni, as president of the Supreme Moslem
> Council and chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, was one of the
> “legitimate negotiators” demanded by the Palestine Arabs, who refused
> to accept any other.
How did the Palestinian Arabs who had no government go about
"demanding" Husseini?
From the Peel Commission through the Round Table
> Conferences, the Anglo-American Inquiry Committee, and the UNSCOP, it
> was the Husayni-dominated Arab Higher Committee which spoke for the
> Palestine Arabs.
He presumed to do so and there were few if any alternatives due to
Palestinian civic chaos.
> > The Jews had a strong but unofficial government and Ben-Gurion *would
> > have* accepted Peel but with the same mental reservations with which
> > he accepted the subsequent UN Partition Plan.
>
> HHWimagines himself privy to Ben-Gurion's private deliberations.
This is proved in Pappe's book which you refuse to acknowledge
contains anything probative.
> >It is without doubt that
> > he wanted all of Palestine but without the Palestinians and was
> > determined to take it by force and to expel them if necessary.
>
> It certainly is doubtful that B-G ever wanted “all of Palestine but
> without the Palestinians[sic]”. Apart from the fact that Ben-Gurion
> himself was a Palestinian –
Oh, so we now have to confuse the issue by describing any creole a
"Palestinian"? Why do you want so badly to obscure the issues,
Deborah?
the Arabs considered themselves “southern
> Syrians” -- none of his statements or writings show any indication
> that he was determined to “take it by force and to expel” the Arabs.
Read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You don't have to like it.
> >There
> > was active Jewish planning going on at this very time (1937) to do it
> > unilaterally.
>
> Twaddle.
Read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You don't have to like it.
>
> > Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish
> > "acceptance" of the UN Plan of 1939 which represented abandonment of
> > the idea of transfer and yet the immediate Jewish implementation of
> > the Nakba,
>
> Amazing! Not only doesHHWimagine himself privy to Ben-Gurion's
> private thoughts,HHWalso imagines the existence of the United
> Nations in 1939, a “UN Plan of 1939”, and Jewish acceptance thereof in
> 1939.
An obvious mistake, Deborah. Here's how I wished it to read:
Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish "acceptance" of the
UN Partition plan of November 1947 which represented abandonment of
the idea of transfer (ethnic cleansing) and yet the immediate Jewish
implementation of the Nakba which was an obvious major episode of
ethnic cleansing. I might add that the planning for "transfer" of
large numbers of Arabs had a ten year history prior to 1947. This is
all proved in Pappe with the appropriate quotations and citations to
Israeli government records. Other than ideology and clinging to the
traditional patriotic narrative, you have no basis for rejecting it.
>
> On 17th May 1939, the British government issued the notorious White
> Paper, which established a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants to
> Palestine for the next five years, plus another 25,000 Jewish
> refugees. After five years and 75,000 new Jewish immigrants, further
> Jewish immigration would be permitted only if the Arabs acquiesced.
> Sale of land to Jews was prohibited immediately. The 1939 White Paper
> “sealed off Palestine as a haven for all but an insignificant fraction
> of Jewish refugees, and this at the moment when European Jewry faced a
> mortal threat to its continued physical survival.”
You presume that the British in 1939 knew the mind of Hitler then much
less in 1942.
> Not exactlyHHW's““UN Plan of 1939” to which he imagines Jews
> accepted.
What I meant was the UN Plan of 1947, the partition plan which would
have led to two bi-national states and an enclave for Jerusalem in
international hands.
>
> > the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which involved three
> > times the number of Arabs "transferred" than Peel had
> >contemplated.
>
> The Peel Plan provided for no “transfer”. That came later. And the
> only “ethnic cleansing” which began in 1939 was the “ethnic cleansing”
> of the Jews of Europe.
Again, from memory, my source says that several hundred thousand Arabs
would have been transfered under Peel but only 1,200 Palestinians.
Should I believe you instead?
>
> > > You know nothing and hence disqualified
> > > to make any statements about Israel and its history.
>
> That would be obvious from onlyHHW'susual blither on Jews, Judaism,
> and Israel, even without his imaginary “UN Plan of 1939” and Jewish
> acceptance thereof.
Shall we speak of your usual blither about Mexicans, Palestinian
cannibals and American politics?
>
> > >The truth is that
> > > Islam will never accept a Jewish state of one block square.
> > Fine,Jack, but they're willing to do so now
>
> They're not. The Arabs want it all.
>
> > and you are not willing
> > to permit it to happen. You want it all just as did Ben-Gurion.
>
> UnlessHHWis stating that B-G lied for decades, and that he had some
> secret agenda which he revealed to nobody on this planet (except,
> perhaps, his mother), Ben-Gurion made it clear in numerous statements
> from 1921 onwards that he did not want all of Palestine, and that he
> believed in the possibility of direct agreement with the Arabs.
We judge him by his writings and his and his successors' actions. He
wasn't fully successful in 1948 but he and his colleagues were in 1967
with the Golan and Gaza as frosting on the cake.
>
> >Your ideology is ethnic cleansing. Why not just admit it up front?
>
> Because it isn't. It'sHHW'sideology – and that of the Arabs, too, of
> course, who have proven it for 13 centuries.
So you finally admit that the Arabs have been in possession of
Palestine for 13 centuries. At last.
This means nothing. It's an unsupported denial of undeniable Israeli
policy in both 1947-48 and 1967 with episodes in between.
> > The British struggled to resolve the difficulties they themselves had
> > created under Balfour.
>
> Balfour created no difficulties.
Sure it did. It begged the question of how a Jewish homeland in an
Arab land would be designed and created. It inveighed against
discrimination against the native population while not further
describing what a Jewish homeland would mean. Herzel addressed the
issue more candidly in the 19th Century and the problem was not to go
away. Apparently his words were not spread across Balfour's desk
before issuance of his Declaration.
It was issued in order to gain Jewish
> support during WWI. In fact, the Kaiser's government was
> contemplating issuing something along the same lines as Balfour, but
> the British beat them to it.
Brits were a far better choice than the Huns, nicht wahr?
As
>
> > The 1939 MacDonald study shows that they had
> > abandoned Peel's reliance on forced transfer, the single most
> > dangerous obstacle to a peace settlement:
>
> There was some “1939 MacDonald study”? Was this part ofHHW's“UN Plan
> of 1939?”
Obviously not. I see you do not deny what I say.
>
> As above, the Peel Report placed no “reliance on forced transfer”, asHHWclaims.
Do you have a basis for rejecting, for example, Wiki on Peel?
>
> > The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after
> > Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over
> > it,
>
> Early in 1938, Malcolm MacDonald, former dominion secretary [and son
> of Ramsay MacD], replaced Ormsby-Gore as Colonial Secretary. MacDonald
> immediately ordered the Government of Palestine to impose even tighter
> restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine.
To avoid making the solution of the problem in Palestine more
difficult, perhaps?
On 9th November 1938
> the Woodhead Report (the Palestine Commission Partition Report) was
> submitted to parliament. “It declared, in sum, that the Peel plan was
> unfeasible, and based this assertion upon the huge Arab minority that
> would remain within the projected Jewish state and the restricted land
> available there for the settlement of tens of thousands of new Jewish
> immigrants.”
Nothing I said deviates from this, Deborah.
>
> No reference to “forced transfer” or “ethnic cleansing” there.
Sure there was. Think of the huge Arab minority which the author
mentions. What was to be done with that minority under Peel? It was to
be expelled.
>
> “While a Jewish state conceivably might become economically viable,
> this was unlikely to be true of a Palestine Arab state deprived of a
> Jewish hinterland.
As if that were the the business of the Brits.
What, then, was the solution? The [Woodhead] report
> professed to find in it a “modification” of partition by which an Arab
> state and a Jewish state (drastically attenuated) would be linked
> together in an enforced economic union, both nations to be deprived of
> sovereignty in all matters of economic policy.”
The problem, created by your ideology, had become intractable when
confronted with facts on the ground. Nothing has changed now has it?
>
> > was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville
> > Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for
> > Palestine was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine
> > governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers
>
> “MacDonald revealed the contours of the government's emerging
> Palestine formula on March 15 [1939]. He proposed that Jewish
> immigration be limited to 75,000 during the next five years, with
> further immigration to depend upon Arab consent. Land sales would be
> similarly curtailed. His one concession to the Zionists was to DROP
> the idea of an independent Palestine with an Arab majority government.
> Although both sides rejected MacDonald's formula, it was quite obvious
> by then that the Jewish position had drastically worsened.”
By what standard?
>
> > in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish
> > immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a
> > regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000,
> > spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After
> > this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission
> > of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on
> > the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III)."
>
> Apparently there are large areas in whichHHW'simagination, like his
> historical knowledge, is severely restricted.
My narrative of the evolution of British attitudes stands intact. Peel
recommended partition accompanied by expulsion. That was not accepted.
The policy became a bi-national state with a rejection of expulsion.
Then the UN partition plan also rejected expulsion. And finally Ben-
Gurion accepted the UN Plan but put expulsion immediately into effect
nevertheless. That was deceitful at best.
> “In Britain itself, the White Paper met with serious criticism on all
> sides. The press was almost uniformly hostile...No criticism was as
> ascerbic, however, as Churchill's. 'THis pledge as a home for
> refugees, of an asylum, was not made to the Jews of Palestine,' he
> emphasized, 'but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that vast, unhappy
> mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering Jews whose intense,
> unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home. That is
> the pledge which was given, and that is the pledge which we are now
> asked to break.'
The promise of Balfour was ambiguous, but it did reject expulsion and
any kind of discrimination.
Several days later, at its annual conference in
> Southport, the British Labor party repudiated the White Paper, thereby
> endorsing the stand of its members in Parliament.”
>
> [The White Paper passed in Commons with 268 votes in favor, 179 votes
> against, and 110 absentions]
>
> “The Chamberlain government's stringently anti-Zionist interpretation
> of the mandate required the approval not only of Parliament, but also
> of the League Permanent Mandates Commission...The members of the
> Commission did not accept [MacDonald's] argument. In their report to
> the League Council, they declared that 'the policy set out in the
> White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in
> agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had
> placed upon the Palestine Mandate.'”
>
> “The MacDonald White Paper by and large succeeded in keeping the Arab
> world quiet, and this was its rationale.”
>
> Like the Evian Conference of 1938 and the Woodhead Report, the White
> Paper showed Hitler “that 'the Jewish question' could not be solved by
> emigration and that a different sort of solution had to be found.”
Who are you quoting here, Deborah?
>
> Deborah
dsharavi
>>response to HHW's nonsensical comment blither about Israel's
>>“insistence on unattainable demands so as to defeat calls for
>>compromise” -- was:
>>>>>>Israel HAS compromised again and again and again
>>>>>>since before the state was founded. But the Arab
>>>>>>Muslims feel they will win in the long run,
>>>>>>because of numbers or whatever, so why should
>>>>>>they compromise? As I've said countless times,
>>>>>>until 56 Muslim states fully recognize ISrael's
>>>>>>RIGHT to exist, and are prepared to accept reasonable
>>>>>>proposals, there can be no permanent peace. The
>>>>>>Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS
>>>>>>that Israel must accept. ISrael they say, MUST go
>>>>>>back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines).
>>>>>>Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again. Israel
>>>>>>must take in the so-called "refugees." EVen then,
>>>>>>they say nothing about Israel's RIGHT to exist,
>>>>>>but only speak about "normalizing" relations,
>>>>>>whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. You'd
>>>>>>think THEY won all the wars and Israel had to
>>>>>>accept their terms on its knees like Japan and
>>>>>>Germany after being bombed out and defeated.
>>>>>>With me, no way Jose.
>>That's what Jack posted, which HHW, being unable to face facts,
>>clipped.
>>>This is emotional blather.
>>Jack's blather contains salient facts which HHW, with his usual
>>allergy to facts, can't face. Among those facts are:
>>1) Israel HAS compromised again and again
On Dec 25, 10:31 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Only under pressure from the U.S. when it was forced to take our
>interests into account.
You neglect to consider pressure from the oil corporations, and the
pressure exerted on them from the Arab OPEC states, as well as the
Arab Lobby.
>And don't forget that the Israeli State was
>created by mass terror.
One can hardly “forget” what never happened. The PalArabs initiated
and perpetrated the “mass terror” attendant upon the birth of Israel.
Had they devoted their energies to creating the second Arab state in
Palestine, that state would now be as old as Israel. They chose
instead to “finish Hitler's work.” Needless to say, they chose
poorly.
>>2) Arab Muslims do feel they will win in the long run, because of
>>numbers [i.e., the
>>“demographic bomb” Terrorfat kept nattering about, while his
>>government encouraged Pallie females to have as many kids as they
>>could]
>So do I and most Israelis fear that result.
You miss Jack's point. And your assumption that you can speak to what
“most Israelis fear” is too grotesquely arrogant for comment.
Personally, I find any authoritative body encouraging humans to breed
reprehensible.
>You conflate two aspects of Zionism's purely ideological "problem,"
The statement is Jack's, don't but presume you can lecture either of
us on your imaginary “Zionist ideology”; without sounding like an
idiot.
[more patented blather snipped]
>>3) The Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel
>>must accept. Among those diktats are:
>> a) Israel MUST go back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines)
>> b) Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again
>> c) Israel must take in the so-called "refugees"
>"a" makes eminent sense
It is impossible to return to the so-called “67 borders”. There were
no borders in 1967. As Jack noted, those were the armistice lines of
1949. Armistice lines are not borders. Armistice lines are merely
where agreements concluded that fighting must stop. Borders were
established when Israel concluded peace treaties with two of the
former belligerents of that war.
>as it's in the American interest that the
>matter be settled. And the American interest is, of course,
>preeminent. You're an American and surely should understand that.
I understand that you understand very little.
>"b" Horrors, Israel must redivide Jerusalem!? AMERICA can't pay THAT
>price!
What price? It's in American interests that Jerusalem remain under
Israeli sovereignty.
>No, surely not; tens of thousands more non-Jewish Americans
>should die
“MORE non-Jewish Americans die”? When – precisely -- have “tens of
thousands of non-Jewish Americans” died for Israel?
>to prevent THAT from happening to say nothing of enduring
>another depression. We Americans couldn't have Jerusalem become an
>international city either.
We Americans don't intend that it should. Read CAREFULLY:
105th CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. CON. RES. 60
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Whereas for 3,000 years Jerusalem has been the focal point
of Jewish
religious devotion;
Whereas Jerusalem today is also considered a holy city by
members of
the Christian and Muslim faiths;
Whereas there has been a continuous Jewish presence in
Jerusalem for
three millennia and a Jewish majority in the city since the 1840's;
Whereas the once thriving Jewish majority of the historic
Old City of
Jerusalem was driven out by force during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War;
Whereas from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city and
Israeli
citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were
denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan;
Whereas in 1967 Jerusalem was reunited by Israel during
the conflict
known as the Six Day War;
Whereas since 1967 Jerusalem has been a united city, and
persons of
all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites
within the city;
Whereas this year marks the 30th year that Jerusalem has
been
administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have
been respected and protected;
Whereas in 1990 the United States Senate and House of
Representatives
overwhelmingly adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 and House
Concurrent Resolution 290 declaring that Jerusalem, the capital of
Israel, 'must remain an undivided city' and calling on Israel and the
Palestinians to undertake negotiations to resolve their differences;
Whereas Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel later cited
Senate
Concurrent Resolution 106 as having 'helped our neighbors reach the
negotiating table' to produce the historic Declaration of Principles
on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed in Washington, D.C. on
September 13, 1993; and
Whereas the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-45), which
became law on November 8, 1995, states as a matter of United States
policy that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That
the Congress--
(1) Congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the
people of Israel
on the 30th anniversary of the reunification of that historic city;
(2) Strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an
undivided city in
which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as
they have been by Israel during the past 30 years;
(3) Calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to
affirm
publicly as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem must
remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel; and
(4) Urges United States officials to refrain from any
actions that
contradict this policy.
Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1997; roll call #176
(406-17)
>"c" But that's not an issue. Everyone agrees the plan is to have the
>American middle class taxpayer finance the compensation of Palestinian
>refugees as an alternative to honoring the right of return.
The so-called “refugees” are an artificially-maintained issue. Where
are the millions of refugees from the 1947 division of India? The
American middle class taxpayer, and the British taxpayer, have been
financing Fakestinian freeloaders and their numerous descendants for
sixty years, along with the 30,000 bureaucrats of UNRWA. It's high
time to put a stop to it, and apply these wasted funds to health care
for needy American citizens. Anyway, the majority of the 600,000-odd
“refugees” from 1948 are no longer kicking, and like hell I'll finance
their descendants.
>It is
>specious to keep raising the issue until it is at least tested in the
>first honest negotiations on the West Bank ever indulged by the
>israelis. You know, the ones done under an American ultimatum.
It's next to impossible to engage in “honest negotiations” over
Jordan's former “West Bank” when the Fakestinians have proven
themselves, time and again, incapable of honest negotiations, or of
abiding by any agreement they make.
>>4) In exchange for the above, the Arabs say nothing about Israel's
>>RIGHT to exist, but only speak about "normalizing" relations.
>They will never give up questioning Israel's right to exist until
>Jewish Zionists give up denying Palestine's right to exist.
If they continue to deny the obvious, it's time we left them all to
slug it out between themselves. And when, precisely, did these “Jewish
Zionists”, whoever they may be, deny some alleged “right” of
“Palestine” to exist?
>When they
>are offered bilaterally and in good faith these matters will be
>tested.
These matters have indeed been tested, with the results as noted
above: the Fakestinians have repeatedly shown themselves as incapable
of good faith as they are of honest negotiations or of abiding by any
agreement they make.
>In the meantime the Israeli Zionists just hate ANY American
>inclination to talk with the Palestinians. That's not the behavior of
>people who want to negotiate.
“Israeli Zionists”, “Jewish Zionists”, show a little honesty yourself;
just call them The Jooz. And do make an effort to abandon your
grotesquely arrogant presumption that you can speak to what millions
“most fear” or “just hate.” It's the anti-American Fakestinians who
are always bitching about American involvement anyway; it's why their
so-called “government” spends $$$millions on PR and propaganda in
perpetuating its standard lies, which would be better off spent to
benefit the people it claims to represent. All it's done for them
lately is to impose Sharia law and its punishments, such as flogging,
amputations, and crucifixions.
>>5) The Arabs behave as if THEY won all the wars they started and
>>Israel must accept their terms on its knees like Japan and Germany
>>after being bombed out and defeated.
>The most important war, the original war against the Palestinian
>people, was begun by the Jews in 1947. The Arab invasion of Palestine
>was a counter-attack. This is beyond question simply as a matter of
>chronology.
Your chronology is false. The facts are that Arab attacks from
December 1947 through February 1948 left 384 Jews dead and 725
wounded. In March 1948 alone, Arabs killed 271 Jews, a few more than
the 257 Arabs killed by Brits and Jews.
Now pay attention to more facts – if you can cope with them:
On December 17 [1947], Bevin warned Marshall that the Jews would “get
their throats cut.” The foreign secretary's appraisal was entirely
shared by British military leaders. In March 1948, with hostilities
now begun, Field Marshal Montgomery offered his opinion that “the Jews
had bought it” -- that they were unable to protect their lines of
communication [from Arab assaults]. The reports of British officers in
Jerusalem, Amman, and Cairo sustained this view. The following month
General Sir Gordon Macmillan, commander of the British forces in
Palestine, stated flatly that the Arabs armies “would have no
difficulty in taking over the whole country.”
[p 297]
The initial Arab response to the Partition Resolution was to carry out
their oft-repeated threat of violence. It set the pattern for the
months and years ahead. In Aleppo, Syria, three hundred Jewish homes
and eleven synagogues were burned to the ground, and half the city's
four thousand Jews fled elsewhere. At Aden, seventy-six Jews were
killed. In Palestine itself the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a
three-day general strike from December 2 to December 4, 1947. Violence
began immediately with attacks on the Jewish quarters in Jerusalem,
Haifa, and Jaffa. Soon after, the Higher Committee began recruiting
volunteers throughout Palestine Arab towns and villages. Most of the
ensuing “militias” were organized around the nucleus of the Futuwwa
and Najjada societies. Their opening tactics were essentially hit-and-
run assaults on isolated Jewish settlements and transportation, and
the pillage and destruction of Jewish property. The attacks were
launched entirely by the Palestine Arabs, although part of the funds
and military equipment came from neighboring Arab countries.
[p 298]
During the September 16, 1947 meeting at Sofar, Lebanon (p. 285), the
Arab League Political Committee appealed for economic reprisals
against Britain and the United States, and for money and weapons for
the Palestine Arabs. Three weeks later the group met again in the
Lebanese town of Alay, this time to organize a military committee of
Arab states...[A] plan was eventually adopted to supply the League's
military committee with 10,000 rifles and other weapons, to arrange
for the passage for 3,000 Arab volunteers through Syria into
Palestine, and to supply L1 million toward the cost of the “defense of
Palestine.” These were the circumstances in which the “Arab Liberation
Army” was formed.
[p 299]
By early spring 1948 the guerrillas had divided Palestine into fronts.
The northern sector of the country, with 7,000 men, remained under the
personal command of Qawukji and of the Syrian Adib al-Shishhakli. The
central sector was held by 5,000 men, the largest number of them under
the Higher Committee's irregulars under the command of Abd al-Qadr al-
Husseini, a nephew of the Mufti. The southern “front,” comprising the
entire Negev, was given over to a fluctuating number of about 2,000
Moslem Brotherhood volunteers from Egypt...With superiority in
numbers, Arab operations became more extensive by the winter and early
spring of 1948. Assaults were launched against Jewish quarters in the
cities, particularly in Jerusalem. There were concentrated attacks
against the kibbutzim in the Hebron hills. Far from interfering with
these Arab military activities, the British turned over their police
fortresses to the guerrillas...In Jerusalem the situation of the Jews
was particularly grave, as relief columns moving along the highway
from the lowlands were systematically decimated by ambushes in the
hills...and the Jewish population of Jerusalem faced the imminent
likelihood of being starved or overrun.
[pp 299-300]
HM Sachar, A History of Israel
>>These are facts which HHW, knowing as little as he does about the
>>history of the region, and refusing to learn anything about it, can't
>>and won't face.
>As I suggested the other evening you wouldn't know a fact if it bit
>you in the arse.
You must have been getting the worst of it in a fact-based exchange;
therefore you fell back on your usual habit of childish, gratuitious –
and, in this case, erroneous -- invective. Even in that respect, you
can't come up with anything on your own, and must, perforce, parrot
others – in this case, me.
>>>They're ready to settle.
>>Twaddle. The only settlement the Palestine Arabs will accept is a
>>Judenrein Israel.
>Pure, dishonest hasbara.
It's rather amusing how the ignorant tend to pick up on an essentially
meaningless word, then toss it around as if it were of great import.
In fact, the only settlement the Arabs will accept is a Judenrein
Israel.
>You want the American people to *believe that
>without testing it* with serious negotiations insisted on by our
>government.
Even for you, that's a remarkably stupid assumption, on several
accounts. Overall, you display yet again your grotesquely arrogant
ignorance in your presumption to speak for what you assume, on no
grounds whatsoever, that one wants “the American people to believe.”
My personal preference is that the government stop insisting on
negotiations and leave the parties to slug it out between them, at the
same time cutting off all foreign aid to the Middle East and applying
those moneys where they would be better spent – on Humanitarian Aid to
needy Americans.
>Only if Americans continue to be hoodwinked will Israel be
>able to stay continuously on the offensive in the ethnic cleansing of
>Palestine without pressure and without losing her dole.
Let's see:
The PalArab “refugee” population has mushroomed from an estimated
600,000 (427,000 by the UN's 1948 estimation) to an alleged 5-8
millions today. This leads to one of two conclusions:
1) Israelis are the world's most ineffective “ethnic cleansers”, or
2) the repetitious blither about “ethnic cleansing” is repetitious
blither.
In fact, the Jordanians were far more effective “ethnic cleansers”; in
a few weeks, they massacred some 20,000 PalArabs, and drove thousands
more from their country. Ditto for the Kuwaitis, who “ethnically
cleansed” almost half a million PalArabs from their country.
>Zionist policy
>adds up to greed for the last scrap of Palestine and the denial of a
>viable Palestinian state.
“Zionist policy” is ....what, exactly? Two “viable Palestinian states”
currently exist: Jordan and Israel. As for “greed for the last scrap
of Palestine”, the freeloading Fakestinians have for decades
consistently demonstrated that “greed for the last scrap of
Palestine”--including Jordan--is theirs.
>This is blatantly contrary to the American
>interest yet the lobby has such a strangle hold on our Congress that
>we are unable to correct our policy.
What a cuddly blanket that imaginary “lobby” is, and how curious that
modern believers in this essentially medieval dogma fail to note the
greater “stranglehold on our Congress” demonstrated by multinational
oil corporations, the Arab Lobby, and other more powerful lobbies. Had
that Jewish/Zionist/Israeli “lobby” actually possessed the “strangle
hold” which devout believers accord it, the Fakestinian issue would
have been long gone from the political scene. The Liquor Lobby is
probably a more powerful than the Jewish Lobby.
>>>>On Dec 15, 4:32 am,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>Give a break. Israel has 80 percent of Palestine and you whine like
>>>>>this?
>>Israel never had 80 percent of Palestine. Currently, it's the Arabs
>>who possess something like 80 percent of Palestine, having been gifted
>>in 1923 with eastern Palestine, from which Jewish settlement was
>>barred.
>You know what Palestine means today, Deborah. This is a red herring.
This is your standard sidedodging, Hunter, with a bit of your
backpeddling thrown in. The fact remains that the bulk of Palestine
became the emirate of Transjordan – from which Jews were excluded – in
1923. Transjordan seized and annexed the so-called “West Bank” in
1948, at the same time Egypt seized the Gaza Strip. The state of
Israel never had, and does not now have, “80 percent of Palestine”.
>And in any event diaspora Jews had no claim to these additional lands.
>None whatever. You can't generate an irredentist claim from thin air
>and expect it to be taken seriously.
You can't continue to sidedodge, backpeddle, bare your essential
ignorance of the subjects you attempt to address, and expect anyone to
take you seriously, do you? Apparently, you do.
>>In 1948, Arabs seized the chunks of western Palestine which
>>had been allocated to the second Arab state in Palestine by UNGAR 181
>>-- which the Arabs rejected, as they had rejected every other form of
>>settlement.
>Therefore, it belongs to European Jews?
Another irrelevant and tangential sidedodge. The facts are as stated.
The facts show that the Jews of western Palestine (Jews were barred
from eastern Palestine) were willing to compromise with the Arabs in
the formation of a second Arab state in Palestine. The Arabs rejected
it, for the reason you falsely and erroneously attribute to Jews, and
that is Arab “greed for the last scrap of Palestine and the denial of
a viable [Jewish] Palestinian state.” The Arabs therefore launched a
war to prevent creation of those second and third states in Palestine.
They lost. Get over it.
>>>>They had to dig in their heels at some point.<
>>Arabs started throwing violent temper tantrums in 1920.
>Oh, you now demonize them as children?
“Demonize them as children” -- that's rich. OK, so the Palestine Arabs
didn't start throwing violent temper tantrums beginning in 1920. They
instigated and incited violent assaults on and massacres of innocent
civilians – their demonstrably preferred targets -- beginning in 1920,
and continuing with escalating violence through 1921, 1929, 1936,
1937, 1938, 1939 – they knocked off a while to aid and abet the Nazis
in WWII – 1947, 1948, and on up to the present, their rationale being
their “greed for the last scrap of Palestine and the denial of a
viable [Jewish] Palestinian state.”
Happy now?
>>They continued
>>pitching fits which escalated in violence over the years, once they
>>learned the lesson which the British taught them -- namely, that
>>violence against Jews makes for good diplomacy.
>Bullshit.
Fact.
>Violence against Arabs made for good, traditional Zionism.
Now that's bullshit. Nothing in any of the multiple forms of Zionism
ever advocated violence against Arabs; in fact, all indications are to
the contrary. It's otherwise with the Arabs; their violence against,
and massacres of, Palestinian Jews had a long history well before the
evolution of political Zionism. And, yes, the British caving in to
every outbreak of Palestine Arab terrorism taught the Palestine Arabs
that their terrorism was effective diplomacy—a lesson they've followed
to this day. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the subjects
you attempt, and fail, to address, – along with your inability to face
facts, your childish surliness when confronted with them, and your
woeful penchant for concocting stupid lies instead.
>>>>YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's useless
>>>>talking to you. Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
>>>>1937 for starters?
>>Please don't give HHW any more than his antedeluvian brain can
>>handle.
>Your dominant organ is the spleen, Deborah.
Yet again you display your inability to face facts, and your childish
surliness when confronted with those which refute your received dogma.
Jack was quite correct: you know nothing of the history of the region,
as evidenced, in part, by your stupid declaration that “Actual Zionist
intentions are proved by the Jewish "acceptance" of the UN Plan of
1939 which represented abandonment of the idea of transfer.”
>>What HHW snipped from Jack's reply:
>>“Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
>>1937 for starters? At that time, the ARabs were offered to
>>get 80% of "Palestine" and rejected it.”
>>Peel proposed the division of western Palestine and Transjordan into
>>three regions: a Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a
>>much larger Arab state in the rest of western Palestine and
>>Transjordan, and a permanently mandated British territory including
>>the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, with British
>>bases in Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. The Peel Report was taken
>>seriously enough by the Arabs for them to almost immediately launch
>>another campaign of violence against it – as well as by the Axis, for
>>them to begin supporting the Palestine Arabs against the British.
>But Deborah. You don't respond to my argument. You clip it instead.
You made no “argument”. You made a series of false statements
regarding the 1937 Royal Commission – following your clip of Jack's
statement as to what Peel offered the Arabs -- which served only to
underscore the validity of Jack's observation that you “know nothing
about the history of the region.” Moreover, I did not, as you falsely
claim, “clip” your so-called “argument”. It follows below, with
corrections to your errors.
>>>You don't have to talk to me but I'm a provocative interlocutor.
>>>"Dangerous" you once said.
>>HHW's assertion that Jack called him “dangerous” sounds like H's oft-
>>repeated lie that I said “Don't you just love Benny Morris?”, and
>>another of his lies that I made a racist remark against Al Sharpton.
>>“Provocative interlocutor” is obviously Watsonese for “fertilizer
>All true, Deborah. Here you know the truth and it still bites you in
>the ass.
The truth, O purveyor of attenuated fertilizer, is that I never made
either statement. It was YOU made up both statements and falsely
attributed them to me. In short, you lied. And you still lie.
>>conveyor”.
>>>The Peel Plan, a recommendation to the British government, was never
>>>British policy.
>>Contrary to HHW's imaginings, the British government behaved as if the
>>Peel Commission's Report was to become policy.
>Really now. Can you prove that?
Already have, as you might have noted had you not indulged in your
usual flight from facts.
Note, also, that your foregoing pronouncements on Peel – which your
brief (and erroneous) description shows your ignorance of – constitute
what you grandiosely refer to as your “argument”, which you claim I
cut, and which I did not.
>Nothing like it appears in the
>historical sketches I've read on this subject.
By your own admission, you haven't read much on the subject. Rather
than a few “historical sketches”, you might try reading some actual
histories on the subject, unless you think the shock of confronting
facts might prove too much for you. Try the Report itself, for
starters.
>>Certainly, the Arabs,
>>the Jews -- and the Axis powers -- considered it as such.
>Even after it was rejected formally by the British government as
>unworkable and then replaced with a new and profoundly different
>analysis two years later. You make up this merde as you go along.
Au contraire, it's you who have shown yourself the chief purveyor of
merde on these NGs, and your backpeddling pronouncement above only
underscores this. As previously stated, the Peel Commission's plan was
never “officially” abandoned or “rejected” -- formally or otherwise.
-- It was “reworked”. The impetus for that reworking of the Peel Plan
was due to several developments. One was the renewal of PalArab
violence on a far vaster scale than previously – , this time aided and
abetted by Germany. Others were the far more important complex of
events then transpiring in Europe. May one assume you've read a few
“historical sketches” on Europe in the late 1930s?
>> It was taken
>>seriously by the Jews, and very seriously by Arabs.
>Nonsense. The Jews had no intention whatever of abiding by the Peel
>plan.
Over and again, you display your arrogant presumption, not only in
areas in which you are demonstrably ignorant, but in presuming to
speak for the “intentions” of people long gone. In fact, Ben-Gurion,
as head of the Jewish Agency, had every intention of abiding by Peel.
>They are to be judged by their behavior and their history. And
>by history I mean up to the present time, not just the Nakba.
Wrong again, and grossly so. One need not explain the obvious. But if
one is going to judge one people, one should certainly judge the other
“by their behavior and their history up to the present time”, and that
is the Arabs. What was THEIR intent regarding Peel? It was that of
their closest ally, as expressed by Foreign Minister Von Neurath's
instructions to German legations in the Middle East issued in July
1937:
“The formation of a Jewish state or a Jewish-led political structure
under a British Mandate is not in Germany's interest, since a
Palestinian state would not absorb world Jewry, but would create an
additional position of power under international law for international
Jewry, somewhat like the Vatican for Catholicism or Moscow for the
Comintern. Germany therefore has an interest in strengthening the Arab
world as a counterweight against such possible increase in power for
world Jewry.”
Rather like your beloved Jewish Lobby, wouldn't you say, old man?
>>In response to Peel. the Iraqi prime minister, Sayid Hikmat Suleiman,
>>warned Abdallah of Transjordan that “Any person venturing to act as
>>the head of such a [partitioned] state would be regarded as an outcast
>>throughout the Arab world and would induce the wrath of Moslems all
>>over the East.”
>Allies often have difficulties in co-ordination. In any event this is
>not 1937.
Suleiman's warning was transmitted to Abdallah in September 1937. Your
“argument” -- which you claimed I snipped, though I did not – concerns
the Peel Plan of 1937, therefore your comment that “this is not 1937”
is absurd. Also absurd is your assumption that Iraq and Transjordan
were “allies” at the time – they were not – but we'll let that blunder
of yours pass.
>>The Damascus government held a Pan-Arab Congress at
>>Bludan in September 1937, attended by over five hundred Arab
>>delegates, which declared that the Jewish National Home and the
>>Palestine mandate must be terminated immediately in favor of a
>>sovereign Arab state; additionally, all Jewish immigration must be
>>halted forthwith, or else the Arab states would forego their relations
>>with Western democracies in favor of alliances with the Axis powers.
>Nor so clever as they might have thought in 1937, eh?
You really will have to explain more fully your little chortle.
>>>Its ideas were officially abandoned by the Foreign
>>>Office and government as "unworkable" primarily because it involved
>>>the forced transfer of large numbers of Arabs to be imposed by
>>>BRITAIN. It would have involved the involuntary transfer of 1200 Jews
>>>but of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. That's why it was unworkable.
>>>The actual land distribution under the Peel Plan did make some sense
>>>however and it would have physically separated the two states.
>>HHW's foregoing comments underscore Jack's remark that HHW knows
>>nothing of the history of the region. The Peel Commission's plan was
>>never “offcially” abandoned. It was “reworked”.
>>After the release of the Peel Commission Report, Palestine Arabs --
>>this time aided by Nazi Germany -- renewed their terror campaign which
>>had led to the Peel Commission in the first place. As a result of Arab
>>violence, which far exceeded that of the previous two years, the
>>British dispatched another commission, the Palestine Partition
>>(Woodhead) Commission, ostensibly “to determine methods by which
>>partition would be carried out and to recommend boundaries for the
>>proposed Arab and Jewish states.” The Woodhead Commission arrived in
>>Palestine -- along with beefed-up British troop strength – at the time
>>when “Axis blackmail diplomacy in Europe obliged Whitehall to become
>>increasingly solicitous of Arab friendship along the Middle East
>>lifeline” and “the Chamberlain government revealed its willingness to
>>appease Hitler and Mussolini at the expense of other, smaller
>>nations.”
>Delightful,
I'm sure you find the imminent annihilation of European Jews nothing
but “delightful”. No doubt you're positively gleeful that in December
1938, due to Arab pressure, the British rejected Jewish pleas for the
rescue of 10,000 Jewish children from central Europe – as they
rejected a similar plea in 1943, due to Arab pressure, so the children
were sent to the death camps. Real delightful, huh? The Arabs thought
so.
>before WW II the Arabs should have chosen the colonial,
>Zionist Jews of Israel over the Germans in the world balance of power?
>Perhaps you can tell us why. Would it be that the Germans were racist
>and the Jewish immigrants were not?
Perhaps you can phrase your questions in a more intelligible – and
intelligent – manner? If they're not merely more of the snide,
childish comments you pop off with, whenever you are confronted with
facts that shed light through the holes in your parroted dogma.
>>The Palestine Partition (Woodhead) Commission's Report was submitted
>>to parliament on 9th November 1938 (which was also the day of
>>Kristallnact), and declared, in sum, that the Peel partition plan was
>>“unfeasible.” The reasons given were that a large Arab minority would
>>remain in the projected Jewish state, and thereby restrict land
>>available for tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants; and that while a
>>Jewish state would conceivably become economically viable, an Arab
>>state, deprived of Jewish educational and technological superiority,
>>would not.
>A racist conclusion if I ever saw one.
It was the reason advanced by Colonial Secretary Macdonald in his 24th
November 1938 speech to Parliament, as to why Jews would be able to
get by on far less territory than the Arabs in partitioned western
Palestine,
[Also in Parliament:
Macdonald: “I cannot remember a time when I was not told stories about
Nazareth and Galilee, about Jerusalem and Bethlehem where was born the
Prince of Peace.”
Churchill: “I thought he was born in Birmingham.”]
>>London officially endorsed the Woodhead Report. The Jews noted that
>>the Jewish state would comprise less than one-twentieth of western
>>Palestine, less than one-hundredth of the original Palestine mandated
>>area, and that most of the existing Jewish towns, villages and
>>landholdings would be granted to the Arab state. The Arabs rejected
>>the plan because it envisaged Jewish sovereignty, even in a
>>drastically attenuated Jewish state.
>Like children fighting over a toy.
“Oh, you now demonize them as children?”
- HHW, Dec 25, 10:31 pm
>> >What seems to skew the Peel Plan in terms of land allocated
>>>to the two
>>>parties is the Negev. You complain about Peel's 80/20 as being unfair,
>>>yet at present it is 80/20 in your favor and you still complain.
>>Where did Jack complain about that?
>He complains about Israel not being given or having succeeded in
>taking the West Bank. What could you conclude?
That you're lying, as usual.
>> Moreover, where, exactly, did Peel
>>allocate land “80/20”, as HHW claims?
>I think that was Jack's assessment.
>Why shouldn't I use it?
Why not, indeed, since you're making it up anyway. What Jack actually
posted – in the part you snipped-- was:
“YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's
useless talking to you. Why don't you start with the
Royal Peel Commission of 1937 for starters? At that
time, the ARabs were offered to get 80% of "Palestine"
and rejected it. You know nothing and hence disqualified
to make any statements about Israel and its history.”
Once again you prove the validity of Jack's assessment on your
historical acumen – such as that may be.
>> Peel provided that for the
>>division of western Palestine and Transjordan into three regions: a
>>Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a much larger Arab
>>state in the rest of western Palestine and Transjordan (i.e., the West Bank HHW),
Don't insert your ignorant additions into my posts. If you have a
comment to make, make it, instead of hiding it. You're wrong anyway;
at the time of the Peel Report, Transjordan did not include the so-
called “West Bank”.
>>and a
>>permanently mandated British territory including the Jerusalem-
>>Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, and British bases in
>>Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. Since there was no way to divide
>>Palestine without handing over 400,000 Jews to Arab domination, or a
>>substantial Arab minority in Jewish territory, “a plan was therefore
>>LATER formulated for transferring land and exchanging populations on
>>the Greco-Turkish model of fourteen years before. In 1937, at any
>>rate, the notion that large irredentist minorities would remain on
>>either side of the partition line was never envisaged, except as a
>>consequence to be avoided.”
>The source I consulted said that the Peel Plan envisaged the transfer
>of only 1,200 Jews but hundreds of thousands of Arabs. My impression
>was that no Jews would remain in in the Arab sector. But perhaps I
>misremember?
Let's say you may “misremember”. No doubt you “misremember” your
“source” as well, but it's likely you're embarrassed to cite it.
Either way, you're wrong.
The Peel Report suggested "a transfer of land and, as far as possible,
an exchange of population". Got that? That exchange included Jews as
well as Arabs. Got that? JEWS AND ARABS. Moreover, the report did NOT
suggest transfer of Jews or Arabs outside Palestine, but to the
territories of the respective Arab and Jewish states, “in order to
prevent friction between the two communities”. Got that? See the Royal
Commission Report, pp 291-293. It was suggested, not proposed, nor
envisaged.
Later – i.e., after the publication of the Peel Report – Weizmann told
Ormsby-Gore that “the whole success of the scheme depended on whether
the Government genuinely did or did not wish to carry out this
recommendation; the transfer could be carried out only by the British
Government, and not by the Jews.” If transfer of Jewish and Arab
populations were to be effected, Ben-Gurion asked the high commission
if the government would make it possible for Arab cultivators to be
settled in eastern Palestine. If eastern Palestine was closed to the
Jews, Ben-Gurion reasoned, surely it couldn't be closed to Arabs as
well. The high commissioner asked Ben-Gurion if Jews would be prepared
to spend money on the settlement of such Palestinian Arabs in eastern
Palestine, and Ben-Gurion said they would certainly consider it.
So much for the “transfer” squall.
>>London announced its commitment to the Peel Plan simultaneously with
>>its publication on 7th July 1937.
>Perhaps, but why does my source say that Peel was rejected as
>unfeasible?
Probably because your “source” is full of crappe. Read the foregoing,
repeated immediately below, CAREFULLY:
>>The Palestine Partition (Woodhead) Commission's Report was submitted
>>to parliament on 9th November 1938 (which was also the day of
>>Kristallnact), and declared, in sum, that the Peel partition plan was
>>“unfeasible.” The reasons given were that a large Arab minority would
>>remain in the projected Jewish state, and thereby restrict land
>>available for tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants; and that while a
>>Jewish state would conceivably become economically viable, an Arab
>>state, deprived of Jewish educational and technological superiority,
>>would not.
Don't bother commenting that Colonial Secretary Macdonald's comment to
parliament was a “racist conclusion”. At the time, the bulk of the
Palestinian Arab (Muslim) population was illiterate, therefore the
comment is entirely in order.
>And then, why did the 1939 study opt for a single bi-
>national state? Then, ultimately, the UN opted for two binational
>states.
You refer, of course, to your “UN Plan of 1939.” Until I've seen this
“UN Plan of 1939”, I can hardly comment on why it did (or did not)
“opt for a single bi-national state.” AFAIK, the UN plan NEVER “opted
for two bi-national states.”
>Can't one see here a struggle over the implications of ethnic
>cleansing as public policy?
The Arabs certainly intended to “ethnically cleanse” the Jews.
>And which policy did the Jews decide to
>implement unilaterally? The aggressively Arabrein solution.
<yawn>The fact that Arabs were aggressively massacring Jews, and,
later, opting to “finish Hitler's work”, seems not to register behind
your eyeballs.
>>The League Mandates Commission was
>>unenthusiastic, and proposed that the period of apprenticeship be
>>extended for the near future. Abdallah and the Nashashibi faction were
>>not unfavorable, but the Mufti and the Arab Higher Committee rejected
>>it with contempt and formally turned it down. Within two months, with
>>aid from Nazi Germany, the Mufti renewed the previous violence,
>>murdering almost 3,000 Arabs in the process.
>We should be very proud, Deborah. We've killed a million Iraqis.
When you say “we”, I presume you mean yourself and the government of
Iran. In any case, the subject under discussion is British Palestine,
the Peel Report of 1937, and events immediately subsequent thereto –
not any hyperbolic fantazia about a million Iraqis --and, in case it
escaped your notice, Iranians -- killed in the war between those two
countries.
>>>It is evident you want it all.
>>Who is the “you” who “wants it all”?Jack?
>Jacks a Zionist as are the Israeli ruling clique. Both want it all. So
>do you.
How odd, then, that they have never displayed any such inclination –
as opposed to Palestine Arabs – and that their actions, such as
returning the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace, among others, are
counterindicative of your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims.
>>He wasn't alive at the time
>>of the Peel plan,
>Irrelevant. "All" has nothing to do with Peel.
But it has everything to do with your personal fantazia, as well as
the dogma you continually parrot.
>> and even though HHW was alive at the time, he was
>>certainly unaware of it.HHW is also unaware of the fact that it was
>>demonstrably the Arabs who wanted it all.
>Irrelevant too.
Facts usually are “irrelevant” to you, so that's nothing new.
>We become "aware" even of recent events in significant
>detail through the reading of memoirs, histories, journals and at the
>most shallow level, journalism.
By your own admission, you've read few of any of them – shallow
journalism excepted, of course.
>>>Your difficulty in the global political sense
>>>is that the Israelis have squandered the entire reservoir of sympathy
>>>due them as the result of the Holocaust and more.
>>Israelis have certainly squandered the sympathy of “the world”,
>>whatever that may be, but it's certainly not as a result of the
>>Holocaust. What “sympathy” is “due” to Israelis anyway? I have no
>>automatic sympathy for them, except when I think how they, and they
>>alone, are held to standards to which no other nation on earth is held
>>– least of all Arab nations.
>I don't believe you.
You have ably demonstrated your extreme difficulty in believing facts
which contradict your dogma.
>>>> At that time, the Arabs were offered to get 80% of
>>>>"Palestine" and rejected it.
>>>The "Arabs" didn't have a government.
>>Neither did the Jews. But the Palestinian Jews had the Jewish Agency,
>>and the Palestine Arabs had the Arab Higher Committee and the Supreme
>>Moslem Council, both of which rejected the Peel Plan.
>The Jews had a quasi government.
So did the Arabs, in case you hadn't noticed. Probably you hadn't,
since you rarely notice facts. In the Arabs; case, the facts concern
the nature of their quasi-government, the Supreme Moslem Council and
the Arab Higher Committee. Neither “ever served as more than organs
for propaganda or violence,” nor had either “provided administrative
training or governmental experience.”
>There was more to it than the Jewish
>Agency. At worst they were much better organized than the
>Palestinians. That's commonly understood among the historians.
It's “commonly understood” because it's a common fact. Why is their
superior organizational ability an “at worst” situation? The
Nashashibis and the Husseinis, et al, weren't devoid of ability, you
know.
>>>There was no one who could be
>>>their legitimate negotiator, certainly not the clan leader Husseini.
>>On the contrary, Amin al-Husayni, as president of the Supreme Moslem
>>Council and chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, was one of the
>>“legitimate negotiators” demanded by the Palestine Arabs, who refused
>>to accept any other.
>How did the Palestinian Arabs who had no government go about
>"demanding" Husseini?
The Palestine Arab quasi-government was vested in the Supreme Moslem
Council and the Arab Higher Committee. In fact, the one financial
concession made by the mandatory government following the partition
vote was to the Supreme Moslem council; the Jews got nothing. Since
the Husseinis so completely liquidated political opposition to
themselves, the British had no choice but to extend them full
recognition as the legitimate voice of the Palestine Arabs. In May
1947, the UN General Assembly accredited the Higher Committee as the
official representative of the Palestine Arabs. The Supreme Moslem
Council was accorded recognition as the legitimate representative of
the Palestine Arabs in the early 1920s, the Arab Higher Committee
received the same recognition in the 1930s, until the renewal of their
terrorism in September 1937 forced the British to declare both
organizations illegal.
>> From the Peel Commission through the Round Table
>>Conferences, the Anglo-American Inquiry Committee, and the UNSCOP, it
>>was the Husayni-dominated Arab Higher Committee which spoke for the
>>Palestine Arabs.
>He presumed to do so and there were few if any alternatives due to
>Palestinian civic chaos.
“He”? The Supreme Moslem Council had been the representative body for
the Palestine Arabs since the 1920s. In the 1930s, it was joined by
the Arab Higher Committee, the latter being an aggregate of most of
the Arab political parties in Palestine. The “Palestinian civic chaos”
was the creation of the latter.
>>>The Jews had a strong but unofficial government and Ben-Gurion *would
>>>have* accepted Peel but with the same mental reservations with which
>>>he accepted the subsequent UN Partition Plan.
>>HHW imagines himself privy to Ben-Gurion's private deliberations.
>This is proved in Pappe's book which you refuse to acknowledge
>contains anything probative.
If Pappe, too, imagines himself privy to Ben-Gurion's private
deliberations, one can only respond that Pappe imagines a lot of
things. He proves nothing, other than his belief that “facts are
irrelevant.” Having read his crappe, I can state that the most honest
parts are the end papers.
>>>It is without doubt that
>>>he wanted all of Palestine but without the Palestinians and was
>>>determined to take it by force and to expel them if necessary.
>>It certainly is doubtful that B-G ever wanted “all of Palestine but
>>without the Palestinians[sic]”. Apart from the fact that Ben-Gurion
>>himself was a Palestinian –
>Oh, so we now have to confuse the issue by describing any creole a
>"Palestinian"? Why do you want so badly to obscure the issues,
>Deborah?
“Obscure”? What's your racist blither about “creoles”? Ben-Gurion was
a Palestinian. Golda Meir was a Palestinian. Yitzhak Ben-Zvi was a
Palestinian. Rachel Yanait and Mayna Shochat were Palestinans, and
Yigal Alon and Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan were native Palestinians.
Arabs of the time called themselves Southern Syrians. The Jerusalem
Post used to be the Palestine Post, the Israeli Philharmonic was the
Palestine Philharmonic. Get the picture? It is extremely that B-G ever
wanted “all of Palestine but without the Palestinians[sic]”, and those
who claim otherwise are lying or don't know what they're talking
about.
>>the Arabs considered themselves “southern
>>Syrians” -- none of his statements or writings show any indication
>>that he was determined to “take it by force and to expel” the Arabs.
>Read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You don't have to like it.
Already read it, along with his History of Palestine. At only 300
pages each, with the bulk being simplified propaganda, neither require
much intellectual effort, and both prove Pappe’s assertion that he’s
not interested in facts. The fact remains that Ben-Gurion did NOT want
“all of Palestine but without the Palestinians[sic]”, nor was he
determined to “take it by force and to expel” the Arabs. As he wrote,
“We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place.
All our aspiration is built on the assumption—proven throughout all
our activity in the Land -- that there is enough room in the country
for ourselves and the Arabs.”
>>>There
>>>was active Jewish planning going on at this very time (1937) to do it
>>>unilaterally.
>>Twaddle.
>Read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You don't have to like it.
I've posted a short, separate response in the hopes of allaying this
childish and insistent whinging on silly old Pappe. See: A Few
Corrections to Pappe's Crappe.
>>>Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish
>>>"acceptance" of the UN Plan of 1939 which represented abandonment of
>>>the idea of transfer and yet the immediate Jewish implementation of
>>>the Nakba,
>>Amazing! Not only does HHW imagine himself privy to Ben-Gurion's
>>private thoughts, HHW also imagines the existence of the United
>>Nations in 1939, a “UN Plan of 1939”, and Jewish acceptance thereof in
>>1939.
>An obvious mistake, Deborah.
I was going to let it slide – very generous of me – until you tried to
rectify it with the following.
>Here's how I wished it to read:
>Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish "acceptance" of the
>UN Partition plan of November 1947 which represented abandonment of
>the idea of transfer (ethnic cleansing)
No, Hunter, your mistake is your attempt to brush off your jump from
“UN Plan of 1939” to “the UN Partition plan of November 1947” as an
“obvious mistake”; it strains credibility. So does your characterizing
the UN partition plan as an “abandonment of the idea of transfer
(ethnic cleansing).” To begin with, “transfer” is not the same as
“ethnic cleansing”; “ethnic cleansing” is what Jews in Arab countries
suffered, along with the Jews of Palestine. There was no “abandonment
of the idea of transfer” in 1947, simply because there had never been
a seriously considered idea of transfer, even by the British, who
proposed it. Even Jabotinsky, leader of the rightwing New Zionist
Organization (Revisionist Party) – I assume you've heard of him –
rejected the idea of transfer.
"Ben-Gurion, testifying before UNSCOP on 8 July 1947, went out of his
way to reject the 1945 British Labor Party platform ‘International
Post-war Settlement' which supported the encouragement of the movement
of the Palestine Arabs to the neighbouring countries to make room for
Jews." Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, p 28
“The idea of a population transfer was never Zionist policy. Ben-
Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were
given the right to evict the Arabs, they would not make use of it.
Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room in
Palestine for both Jews and Arabs following the industrialization of
the country and the introduction of intensive methods of agriculture.”
W. Laqueur, A History of Zionism, p 232
You dishonestly fail to note that population transfer suggestions
included transferring Jews as well as Arabs.
You can stop beating the transfer idea now, it's a dead horse.
>and yet the immediate Jewish
>implementation of the Nakba which was an obvious major episode of
>ethnic cleansing.
As stated above, the “immediate Jewish implementation of the Nakba” --
how your sort love to parrot your your recently-discovered terms –
left 384 Jews dead and 725 wounded in Arab attacks from December 1947
through February 1948 – far more than the casualties sustained by
Arabs; in March 1948 alone, 271 Jews were killed, again, a bit more
than the 257 Arab casualties. A pretty poorly planned “Nakba”, one
might say, if one weren't set on shoveling Palliebull and declaring it
sweetly scented.
>I might add that the planning for "transfer" of
>large numbers of Arabs had a ten year history prior to 1947. This is
>all proved in Pappe with the appropriate quotations and citations to
>Israeli government records.
Pappe's research is shoddier than I gave him credit, and I credited
him with very shoddy research. “Planning for 'transfer' had a ten year
history prior to 1947”? I think not. Arthur Ruppin suggested a limited
population transfer of fellahin to Syria; the suggestion didn't
encompass the whole of Palestine's Arab population, only those Arabs
squatting on lands which the owners had sold to Jews. Ruppin's
suggestion was shot down. That was in 1911. Some two decades later,
Lord Passfield suggested to Weizmann that transfer of troublesome
Arabs to “Transjordan might be a way out”. Weizmann rejected it.
And please don't bring up any truncated quotes attributed to Ben-
Gurion. As he wrote in 1937, “We do not wish and do not need to expel
Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the
assumption—proven throughout all our activity in the Land - - that
there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.”And
as he told his party members following the partition vote in 1947, "In
our state there will be non-Jews as well—and all of them will be equal
citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the
state will be their state as well." Plans were discussed for Arab
health care, education, an Arabic-language press, incorporating Arabs
into the government, and Arab-Jewish cultural and intellectual
interaction – hardly the actions of those about to impose "transfer"
of “large numbers of Arabs”.
>Other than ideology and clinging to the
>traditional patriotic narrative, you have no basis for rejecting it.
I have every basis for rejecting Pappe's crappe. Pappe proves nothing,
as you keep trumpeting, save his dislike of facts. See my other post:
A Few Corrections to Pappe's Crappe.
>>On 17th May 1939, the British government issued the notorious White
>>Paper, which established a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants to
>>Palestine for the next five years, plus another 25,000 Jewish
>>refugees. After five years and 75,000 new Jewish immigrants, further
>>Jewish immigration would be permitted only if the Arabs acquiesced.
>>Sale of land to Jews was prohibited immediately. The 1939 White Paper
>>“sealed off Palestine as a haven for all but an insignificant fraction
>>of Jewish refugees, and this at the moment when European Jewry faced a
>>mortal threat to its continued physical survival.”
>You presume that the British in 1939 knew the mind of Hitler then much
>less in 1942.
Read the foregoing quote CAREFULLY:
The 1939 White Paper “sealed off Palestine as a haven for all but an
insignificant fraction of Jewish refugees, and this at the moment when
European Jewry faced a mortal threat to its continued physical
survival.”
If you need to read it several times, do so.
>>Not exactly HHW's““UN Plan of 1939” to which he imagines Jews
>>accepted.
>What I meant was the UN Plan of 1947, the partition plan which would
>have led to two bi-national states and an enclave for Jerusalem in
>international hands.
Now you're REALLY stretching your “obvious mistake” excuse, Hunter.
>>>the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which involved three
>>>times the number of Arabs "transferred" than Peel had
>>>contemplated.
>>The Peel Plan provided for no “transfer”. That came later. And the
>>only “ethnic cleansing” which began in 1939 was the “ethnic cleansing”
>>of the Jews of Europe.
>Again, from memory,
Which, as you have proven, time and again, is quite fawlty.
>my source says that several hundred thousand Arabs
>would have been transfered under Peel but only 1,200 Palestinians.
>Should I believe you instead?
Of course not, Hunter. You should, instead, contemplate and weigh the
facts I have presented, as opposed to what you have read from your
“source”. Sheesh, Hunter, you were an attorney; did you never, once,
in your entire career, get into an open courtroom with a client, only
to find out, at the last and final, irretrievable moment, that your
client had bullshitted you most royally?
You've got a large bug up your butt about the “Israel Lobby”. Try to
examine why—along with why the Oil Lobby and the Arab Lobby don't faze
you at all.
>>>>You know nothing and hence disqualified
>>>>to make any statements about Israel and its history.
>>That would be obvious from only HHW's usual blither on Jews, Judaism,
>>and Israel, even without his imaginary “UN Plan of 1939” and Jewish
>>acceptance thereof.
>Shall we speak of your usual blither about Mexicans, Palestinian
>cannibals and American politics?
You're given to pointless and tangential sidedodges whenever you're
confronted by facts, so why not? How about the Hamas government's
imposition of Sharia law? Floggings and amputations and crucifixion,
Hunter, that's what the bill passed by your “democratically elected”
Palestinian government now imposes upon the population it controls.
>>>>The truth is that
>>>>Islam will never accept a Jewish state of one block square.
>>>Fine,Jack, but they're willing to do so now
>>They're not. The Arabs want it all.
Since you don't comment, may one presume you agree that the Arabs want
it all?
>>>and you are not willing
>>>to permit it to happen. You want it all just as did Ben-Gurion.
>>Unless HHW is stating that B-G lied for decades, and that he had some
>>secret agenda which he revealed to nobody on this planet (except,
>>perhaps, his mother), Ben-Gurion made it clear in numerous statements
>>from 1921 onwards that he did not want all of Palestine, and that he
>>believed in the possibility of direct agreement with the Arabs.
>We judge him by his writings and his and his successors' actions. He
>wasn't fully successful in 1948 but he and his colleagues were in 1967
>with the Golan and Gaza as frosting on the cake.
You are overreaching again, Hunter, into areas you know nothing about.
In 1948, BG succeeded; he had been told by Yisrael Galili and Yigael
Yadin that they had only a 50-50 chance of surviving. They survived.
By 1967, BG had been gone from the political arena for years—down in
Sde Boker, where he listed his occupation, incidentally, as
“agricultural worker.”-- Moshe Dayan, the international media''s fair-
haired boy, whose career BG had promoted since the 1940s, didn't even
bother to let him in on what was going on, despite BG's request.
You stated BG should be judged by his writings? Then read them – in
particular, “My Talks with Arab Leaders”. Of course those, and Shabtai
Teveth's “Ben-Gurion and the Palestine Arabs”, shoot down your
“source”, so you probably won't. As well as a writer, Ben-Gurion was
an indefatigable reader, and left a personal library of over 23,000
volumes.
Judging BG by his successors' actions is rubbish, and you know it.
>>>Your ideology is ethnic cleansing. Why not just admit it up front?
>>Because it isn't. It's HHW's ideology – and that of the Arabs, too, of
>>course, who have proven it for 13 centuries.
>So you finally admit that the Arabs have been in possession of
>Palestine for 13 centuries. At last.
You seem to have a problem with reading, as well as with facts,
Hunter. I can't admit that Arabs were in possession of Palestine for
the period you suggest, because they weren't. They controlled
Palestine for a little over three hundred years; then they lost it,
and never possessed it again. As for “ethnic cleansing”, that was
always SOP for invading Muslim Arabs.
>This means nothing. It's an unsupported denial of undeniable Israeli
>policy in both 1947-48 and 1967 with episodes in between.
Your comment means nothing, Hunter. Israeli policy didn't exist in
1947. In 1948, Israeli “policy” was to survive the onslaught of seven
invading Arab armies, with no help from the “international community”.
As Jack noted, and you have since proven, “You know nothing about the
history of the region”, so let's stick to the subjects at hand, before
you embarrass yourself further.
>>>The British struggled to resolve the difficulties they themselves had
>>>created under Balfour.
>>Balfour created no difficulties.
>Sure it did. It begged the question of how a Jewish homeland in an
>Arab land would be designed and created. It inveighed against
>discrimination against the native population while not further
>describing what a Jewish homeland would mean.
Really? Let's see what the Balfour Declaration – actually, a letter
from Lord Balfour to the president of the British Zionist Federation –
states:
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf
of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration
of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has
been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the
establishment in Palestine of a national home for
the Jewish people, and will use their best
endeavours to facilitate the achievment of this
object, it being clearly understood that nothing
shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish
communities in Palestine, or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other
country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this
declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
If you had actually studied the subjects you try to address, you would
know that by the time the Balfour Declaration was issued, the
principal rationale for it no longer existed. Allenby's army was on
the offensive. The issue of Palestine was decided in the battles
between the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, the Ottoman army, and the
Asienkorps. But you don't care for facts, do you?.
>Herzel addressed the
>issue more candidly in the 19th Century and the problem was not to go
>away. Apparently his words were not spread across Balfour's desk
>before issuance of his Declaration.
You are very vague here, Hunter, what are you trying to say? Beyond
the obvious, that is, which is your usual attempt to claim knowledge
you lack. What issue do you imagine Herzl was addressing “more
candidly”? As for your assumption that Herzl's “words were not spread
across Balfour's desk”, let me assure you, Hunter, that Herzl's words
were indeed spread across Lord Balfour's desk, even before Balfour was
prime minister. Your vague sidedodge aside, let us return to the issue
which you claim that Herzl addressed “more candidly in the 19th
Century”.
What issue did “Herzel” address “more candidly in the 19th Century”,
Hunter?
>>It was issued in order to gain Jewish
>>support during WWI. In fact, the Kaiser's government was
>>contemplating issuing something along the same lines as Balfour, but
>>the British beat them to it.
>Brits were a far better choice than the Huns, nicht wahr?
Grasping again, are you, Hunter?
What issue did “Herzel” address “more candidly in the 19th Century”?
>As
Forgot another sidedodge, did you, Hunter?
>>>The 1939 MacDonald study shows that they had
>>>abandoned Peel's reliance on forced transfer, the single most
>>>dangerous obstacle to a peace settlement:
>>There was some “1939 MacDonald study”? Was this part of
>>HHW's“UN Plan of 1939?”
>Obviously not. I see you do not deny what I say.
You need better glasses, Hunter. Was there, as you claim, a “1939
MacDonald study”? a “UN Plan of 1939”? I can hardly deny either
without knowing what they are. What was that “1939 MacDonald study”
you mentioned? And, of course, your “UN Plan of 1939”.
>>As above, the Peel Report placed no “reliance on forced transfer”,
>>as HHW claims.
>Do you have a basis for rejecting, for example, Wiki on Peel?
The Wiki article on Peel mentions no “reliance on forced transfer”, as
you claim. Nothing in the summary of the Peel report suggests any
“reliance on forced transfer”, as you claim.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358!OpenDocument
Nothing in the Report itself suggests any “reliance on forced
transfer,” as you claim.
http://domino.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf
Or maybe you're “misremembering” again?
>>>The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after
>>>Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over
>>>it,
>>Early in 1938, Malcolm MacDonald, former dominion secretary [and son
>>of Ramsay MacD], replaced Ormsby-Gore as Colonial Secretary. MacDonald
>>immediately ordered the Government of Palestine to impose even tighter
>>restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine.
>To avoid making the solution of the problem in Palestine more
>difficult, perhaps?
To appease the Arabs. Axis blackmail diplomacy in Europe obliged
Whitehall to become increasingly solicitous of Arab friendship along
the Middle East lifeline [and] the Chamberlain government revealed its
willingness to appease Hitler and Mussolini and the expense of other,
smaller nations.
>>On 9th November 1938
>>the Woodhead Report (the Palestine Commission Partition Report) was
>>submitted to parliament. “It declared, in sum, that the Peel plan was
>>unfeasible, and based this assertion upon the huge Arab minority that
>>would remain within the projected Jewish state and the restricted land
>>available there for the settlement of tens of thousands of new Jewish
>>immigrants.”
>Nothing I said deviates from this, Deborah.
Obviously you're “misremembering” again.
>>No reference to “forced transfer” or “ethnic cleansing” there.
>Sure there was. Think of the huge Arab minority which the author
>mentions. What was to be done with that minority under Peel? It was to
>be expelled.
Read slooowly and carefully: THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR EXPULSION OF
ARABS UNDER THE PEEL PLAN. THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR “FORCED
TRANSFER” OR “ETHNIC CLEANSING” OF ARABS UNDER THE PEEL PLAN.
Got that?
>>“While a Jewish state conceivably might become economically viable,
>>this was unlikely to be true of a Palestine Arab state deprived of a
>>Jewish hinterland.
>As if that were the the business of the Brits.
As a matter of fact, it WAS the business of the Brits. In case you
misremember again – or, more likely, never knew -- Britain was the
mandatory power, and, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, took
with full seriousness its mandatory obligations to nurture its Arab
wards to independence.
>>What, then, was the solution? The [Woodhead] report
>>professed to find in it a “modification” of partition by which an Arab
>>state and a Jewish state (drastically attenuated) would be linked
>>together in an enforced economic union, both nations to be deprived of
>>sovereignty in all matters of economic policy.”
>The problem, created by your ideology, had become intractable when
>confronted with facts on the ground. Nothing has changed now has it?
What “facts on the ground”? You've presented very few.
Back to the Woodhead Report. Under its proposal, the Jewish state
comprised less than one-twentieth of western Palestine and less than
one-hundredth of the mandated area originally awarded to Britain in
1920. Most of the existing Jewish towns and villages and landholdings
were excluded from the boundaries. The Arabs, to whom the proposal
gave the lion's share, rejected it because it still envisaged Jewish
sovereignty, even in highly diluted form.
>>>was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville
>>>Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for
>>>Palestine was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine
>>>governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers
>>“MacDonald revealed the contours of the government's emerging
>>Palestine formula on March 15 [1939]. He proposed that Jewish
>>immigration be limited to 75,000 during the next five years, with
>>further immigration to depend upon Arab consent. Land sales would be
>>similarly curtailed. His one concession to the Zionists was to DROP
>>the idea of an independent Palestine with an Arab majority government.
>>Although both sides rejected MacDonald's formula, it was quite obvious
>>by then that the Jewish position had drastically worsened.”
>By what standard?
Don't be stupid.
>>>in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish
>>>immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a
>>>regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000,
>>>spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After
>>>this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission
>>>of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on
>>>the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III)."
>>Apparently there are large areas in which HHW's imagination, like his
>>historical knowledge, is severely restricted.
>My narrative of the evolution of British attitudes stands intact.
Only as another pile of crappe.
>Peel
>recommended partition accompanied by expulsion. That was not accepted.
It wasn't accepted because Peel didn't recommend expulsion. This is a
lie.
>The policy became a bi-national state with a rejection of expulsion.
Wrong again, on both counts.
>Then the UN partition plan also rejected expulsion.
A decade later, following WWII, and again, there was no rejection of
expulsion, because none had been proposed.
>And finally Ben-Gurion accepted the UN Plan
As he had accepted Peel.
>but put expulsion immediately into effect
>nevertheless. That was deceitful at best.
At best, your parroted lie that Ben-Gurion “put expulsion immediately
into effect” is pure-d bullshit of the brownest ray serene.
>>“In Britain itself, the White Paper met with serious criticism on all
>>sides. The press was almost uniformly hostile...No criticism was as
>>ascerbic, however, as Churchill's. 'THis pledge as a home for
>>refugees, of an asylum, was not made to the Jews of Palestine,' he
>>emphasized, 'but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that vast, unhappy
>>mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering Jews whose intense,
>>unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home. That is
>>the pledge which was given, and that is the pledge which we are now
>>asked to break.'
>The promise of Balfour was ambiguous, but it did reject expulsion and
>any kind of discrimination.
Balfour didn't “reject” expulsion. It was never considered. And the
“promise” was quickly broken by the mandatory power.
>>Several days later, at its annual conference in
>>Southport, the British Labor party repudiated the White Paper, thereby
>>endorsing the stand of its members in Parliament.”
>>[The White Paper passed in Commons with 268 votes in favor, 179 votes
>>against, and 110 absentions]
>>“The Chamberlain government's stringently anti-Zionist interpretation
>>of the mandate required the approval not only of Parliament, but also
>>of the League Permanent Mandates Commission...The members of the
>>Commission did not accept [MacDonald's] argument. In their report to
>>the League Council, they declared that 'the policy set out in the
>>White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in
>>agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had
>>placed upon the Palestine Mandate.'”
>>“The MacDonald White Paper by and large succeeded in keeping the Arab
>>world quiet, and this was its rationale.”
>>Like the Evian Conference of 1938 and the Woodhead Report, the White
>>Paper showed Hitler “that 'the Jewish question' could not be solved by
>>emigration and that a different sort of solution had to be found.”
>Who are you quoting here, Deborah?
Do try to get your head out of Pappe's crappe, wash your face, and
look it up. It's in Sachar and Teveth.
Deborah
Peace Power
You don't do facts, zionazi slime.
All you know is zionist propaganda.
The GAZA, CHANUKAH MASSACRE - photo slide show:
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/29/updated-gaza-massacre-photo-gallery/
DoD
> On Dec 29, 3:55 pm, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Get your head examined, you stupid old bitty.
Peace Power
Ben Cramer
>>>This is emotional blather.
Pressure from those groups was minimalist compared to the pressure applied
by the yids, slime.