Definition of terrorism.
John Reidar Mathiassen
comments is something I would like to hear.
I would claim that Palestinian attacks on military occupation forces is not
terrorism, but self-defence. However, the killing of innocent people in
Israel proper (minus the territories) should be considered terrorist acts.
The problem group here is the settlers. If a group of people settle occupied
territories, and in some cases arm themselves with guns (for self defense of
the occupied territories), are they aggressors or defendors?
I think there should be distinct definitions of war, terrorism and crime,
and all three should be illegal. War arises because some people believe
their truth is the only truth, and discussions therefore become difficult.
-John Reidar
Albert Reingewirtz
Sophomoric attempt. Like pornography everyone knows exactly when
something is terrorism. Targetting civilians with suicide bombers is
terrorism. Stick this in your frozen brain, moron!
John Reidar Mathiassen
> something is terrorism. Targetting civilians with suicide bombers is
> terrorism. Stick this in your frozen brain, moron!
Frozen brain, and moron... Spare the laim comments, please!
I stated it my post that I look upon attacks on civilians in Israel as
terrorism. That includes, as you pointed out, suicide bombers. So don't call
me a moron with a frozen brain!! It is totally uncalled for!
The discussion I wanted to raise is the definition of terrorism. And in
light of this definition, can e.g. attacks on IDF occupation forces be
called terrorism. And can attacks on civilian palestinians be called
terrorism.
Any sensible comments and input are welcome!
-John Reidar
AC
The lines between war, terrorism and self defense are very blurred no more
so than in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And the 'T' word has now itself become
a weapon since Sept 11. Anyone labeled as terrorists is doomed under the
USA's international war on terrorism. This may include a 10 year old
Palestinian boy who throws stones at the Isreali soldiers that have made his
life a misery. Once some group of people are labeled as terrorists they
become fair game. It's now open season on so-called terrorists, forget about
human rights, they don't apply if you look like you might be a terrorist.
"John Reidar Mathiassen" <John.R.M...@itk.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:a1er4i$fm$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
Poul
> > Sophomoric attempt. Like pornography everyone knows exactly when
> > something is terrorism. Targetting civilians with suicide bombers is
> > terrorism. Stick this in your frozen brain, moron!
> Frozen brain, and moron... Spare the laim comments, please!
But he is right.
> I stated it my post that I look upon attacks on civilians in Israel as
> terrorism. That includes, as you pointed out, suicide bombers. So don't call
> me a moron with a frozen brain!! It is totally uncalled for!
But you excluded from your condemnation terrorist attacks on settlers who
are also civilians.
> The discussion I wanted to raise is the definition of terrorism. And in
> light of this definition, can e.g. attacks on IDF occupation forces be
By calling them "occupation forces" you are already passing the judgement.
> called terrorism. And can attacks on civilian palestinians be called
> terrorism.
Of course, if you can prove that it was a deliberate attack on
civilian palestinians.
AC
Resorting to calling someone making a valid point (wheather you agree with
it or not) a 'moron' does not say much for your intelligence.
dlt...@yahoo.com
>I would claim that Palestinian attacks on military occupation forces
>is not terrorism, but self-defence.
Some people claim aliens built the pyramids. So what?
Deborah
AC
would do - fighting back by whatever means they can.
I.R.
If they don't like their lives they can get OFF
Israel's land and go back to the countries they
came from: Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
Jordan, and other Arab countries.
ir
"AC" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c3b7aa8$0$6985$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
John Reidar Mathiassen
Please refer me to information that confirms this. To confirm your statement
you would have to define oppression, and confir with everyone that they
according to this definition are not oppressing the Arab SQUATTERS. I have
no formal definition of oppression, but I think holding back tax money,
rolling tanks into villages, destroying orchards, blocking their roads, and
killing and humiliating some of them might fall under a limited definition
of oppression.
> If they don't like their lives they can get OFF
> Israel's land and go back to the countries they
> came from: Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
> Jordan, and other Arab countries.
I might be wrong in some of my statements, so please correct me.
As far as I have heard, the West Bank and Gaza belong(ed) to Jordan and
Egypt, and borders were set when the state of Israel was created in 1948. In
1967 Israel expanded itself (or occupied new territories) into the West Bank
and Gaza. This land, I believe, is what most palestinians want back.
So the case is that the palestinians are on land that is officially not
Israels, so they are already OFF Israels land (as defined by the borders of
1967). Regardless of whether they don't like their lives, they are off
Israels land. And since the palestinian state is not yet created, they are
still in Jordan and Egypt.
Kind regards,
-John Reidar
John Reidar Mathiassen
news:mBK_7.9330$cD4....@www.newsranger.com...
This newsgroup is for discussing topics related to Israel. I was referring
to something that had to with Israel and IDF, so I do not quite see what
your question implies.
Regarding your statement on pyramids, the population of an arab country,
Egypt, built the wonderful and majestic Pyrimads many thousands of years
ago. They were not aliens in the land they lived, and were therefore not
aliens. (as a sarcastic sidenote... Arabs built the pyramids. Some people
regard the Arabs as aliens on 'their' land. Thus, it is understandable that
some people think aliens built the pyramids.)
Kind regards,
John Reidar
John Reidar Mathiassen
> > > something is terrorism. Targetting civilians with suicide bombers is
> > > terrorism. Stick this in your frozen brain, moron!
> > Frozen brain, and moron... Spare the laim comments, please!
>
> But he is right.
Yes he has a good point, that terrorism is hard to define. Sometimes one can
say that one knows it, when one see's it. I should have mentioned this in my
reply.
However, he is not right in calling me a moron with a frozen brain.
> > I stated it my post that I look upon attacks on civilians in Israel as
> > terrorism. That includes, as you pointed out, suicide bombers. So don't
call
> > me a moron with a frozen brain!! It is totally uncalled for!
>
> But you excluded from your condemnation terrorist attacks on settlers who
> are also civilians.
I didn't include, but I did not exclude. I raised the following question:
If a group of people settle occupied
territories, and in some cases arm themselves with guns (for self defense of
the occupied territories), are they aggressors or defendors?
I agree that any killing of civilians is terrorism, especially women and
children. The problem is that occupying territories, and destroying existing
homes to build new homes for ones own population is an aggressive action (in
many cases one can almost define it as an act of war).
Illegal expansion of ones territories, destruction of homes, and expulsion
of people is wrong. Living on occupied land is wrong. Killing civilians on
occupied land is also wrong. Essentially what has happened is that the
occupation is an act of war, where the civilians (Israeli) are placed just
behind the front line.
> > The discussion I wanted to raise is the definition of terrorism. And in
> > light of this definition, can e.g. attacks on IDF occupation forces be
>
> By calling them "occupation forces" you are already passing the judgement.
Sorry for the biased label. I raise the same question regarding IDF troops
operating in palestinian controlled territories. Is an attack on these
troops to be considered a terrorist attack?
> > called terrorism. And can attacks on civilian palestinians be called
> > terrorism.
>
> Of course, if you can prove that it was a deliberate attack on
> civilian palestinians.
I am not sure of this, but I think there have been many attacks on
palestinians in recent times, which involved the killing of civilians. If
so, the IDF is also responsible for terrorism.
However, I think both sides should stop the violence. Palestinians should
stop the suicide bombing, mortar fires and bus bombing (due to it's
brutality and realizing it probably does not do them any good, as Arafat
also stated in his speech dec. 16). Also, Israeli troops should retreat from
the occupied territories and stop harassing and killing civilian
palestinians. Both sides need to sacrifice something for the benefit of a
peaceful future.
Kind regards,
John Reidar
dlt...@yahoo.com
>Regarding your statement on pyramids, the population of an arab country,
>Egypt, built the wonderful and majestic Pyrimads many thousands of years
>ago. They were not aliens in the land they lived, and were therefore not
>aliens. (as a sarcastic sidenote... Arabs built the pyramids.
The pyramids of Giza were built c 26thC BCE. Arabs
didn't invade and subjugate Egypt until 640-642 CE.
Deborah
Poul
> > No one is oppressing these Arab SQUATTERS.
> Please refer me to information that confirms this. To confirm your statement
> you would have to define oppression, and confir with everyone that they
For that you'd have to define the word "define".
> according to this definition are not oppressing the Arab SQUATTERS. I have
> no formal definition of oppression, but I think holding back tax money,
Collected in Israel...
> rolling tanks into villages,
To arrest terrorists
> destroying orchards,
Planted a week before to SQUATTER on a land that doesn't belong to them
> blocking their roads, and
To prevent terrorist attacks
> killing and humiliating some of them
Thanks to wide spread terror from them
> might fall under a limited definition of oppression.
No (see above).
> > If they don't like their lives they can get OFF
> > Israel's land and go back to the countries they
> > came from: Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
> > Jordan, and other Arab countries.
> I might be wrong in some of my statements, so please correct me.
> As far as I have heard, the West Bank and Gaza belong(ed) to Jordan and
> Egypt, and borders were set when the state of Israel was created in 1948. In
Not borders, but de-facto cease fire lines, after Arabs tried to destroy
Israel and failed in several attempts.
> 1967 Israel expanded itself (or occupied new territories) into the West Bank
> and Gaza.
After Arabs started yet another war to destroy Israel.
> This land, I believe, is what most palestinians want back.
How can they want it "back" if, even according to you, it wasn't
their, but Jordanian and Egyptian?
> So the case is that the palestinians are on land that is officially not
> Israels, so they are already OFF Israels land (as defined by the borders of
> 1967). Regardless of whether they don't like their lives, they are off
> Israels land. And since the palestinian state is not yet created, they are
> still in Jordan and Egypt.
Jordan and Egypt don't want this land, so it is not theirs. It is
disputed land, to be settled in peace negotiations, which Palestinians
blew.
> Kind regards,
> -John Reidar
Hope this educates you a little.
Poul.
Poul
> Well said.
>
> The lines between war, terrorism and self defense are very blurred no more
No, they are not blurred at all - they are very clearly defined.
Of course, terrorist supporters TRY to blur them for propaganda
purposes, but it's futile and stupid attempt.
> so than in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And the 'T' word has now itself become
> a weapon since Sept 11. Anyone labeled as terrorists is doomed under the
> USA's international war on terrorism.
...
Not at all. Terrorist is anyone who perform acts of terror, and anyone
who helps or harbors them. Very simple, no need to label anyone.
Michael Medved
> I might be wrong in some of my statements, so please correct me.
> As far as I have heard, the West Bank and Gaza belong(ed) to Jordan and
> Egypt
wrong
> and borders were set when the state of Israel was created in 1948.
wrong
> In
> 1967 Israel expanded itself (or occupied new territories) into the West Bank
> and Gaza. This land, I believe, is what most palestinians want back.
wrong.
Now go and learn some history. For example, find out who had recognized
sovereignty over what you call "West Bank" and Gaza between 1948 and
1967. Come back and tell us.
I.R.
news:a1g11g$k5p$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> > No one is oppressing these Arab SQUATTERS.
>
> Please refer me to information that confirms this. To confirm your
statement
> you would have to define oppression, and confir with everyone that they
> according to this definition are not oppressing the Arab SQUATTERS. I have
> no formal definition of oppression, but I think holding back tax money,
> rolling tanks into villages, destroying orchards, blocking their roads,
and
> killing and humiliating some of them might fall under a limited definition
> of oppression.
No. It's not oppression. It's the definition of SELF DEFENSE.
These Arabs didn't have to launch a war against the Israeli
civilians. Now that the Arabs launched their filthy war their
can EAT its rewards for the rest of their misserable lives.
I insist that Israel defends its civilians no matter what it has
to do to the Arabs SQUATTERS.
>
> > If they don't like their lives they can get OFF
> > Israel's land and go back to the countries they
> > came from: Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
> > Jordan, and other Arab countries.
>
> I might be wrong in some of my statements, so please correct me.
>
> As far as I have heard, the West Bank and Gaza belong(ed) to Jordan and
> Egypt, and borders were set when the state of Israel was created in 1948.
In
> 1967 Israel expanded itself (or occupied new territories) into the West
Bank
> and Gaza. This land, I believe, is what most palestinians want back.
This poster heard wrong. No one had borders there. Egypt and Jordan
took over those previously British controlled areas because they wanted
to occupy them. When these Arab countries attacked Israel in 1967 they
lost the land they occupied at Israel's expense back in 1948.
Now Israel has its land back.
>
> So the case is that the palestinians are on land that is officially not
> Israels, so they are already OFF Israels land (as defined by the borders
of
> 1967). Regardless of whether they don't like their lives, they are off
> Israels land. And since the palestinian state is not yet created, they are
> still in Jordan and Egypt.
I am afraid this poster had it all wrong. Israel is now controlling its
own land and the Arab SQUATTERS aren't wanted. They don't want
to live in peace --> they can leave and go back to countries they
came from in the early 20th century: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq,
Syria, and others.
>
> Kind regards,
> -John Reidar
Sincerely,
ir
Eric Hufschmid
> No one is oppressing these Arab SQUATTERS.
> If they don't like their lives they can get OFF
> Israel's land
If the land in Palestine truly belonged to the Israelis, there would
have been no need for the Zionist movement in 1896. The Zionist
movement began because the Jews wanted to take the land from the
Palestinians. Almost nobody in America (or Australia) knows anything
about history.
Also, the US government and media try to manipulate Americans.
For example, many news reports about the World Trade Center and
Afghanistan find
a way to slip in a remark about the dead people, like this:
"U.S. warplanes bombed a village in Afghanistan today that was
believed to be a hideout for the terrorist group that attacked the
World Trade Center, which killed more than 3000 people."
This is a not very subtle attempt at manipulation. Is the US
government and/or media worried that we will stop hating the Arabs?
The above material came from this:
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Manipulation.html
Omega Man
the Holy Quran:
Surah 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,
nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow
the religion [Islam] of truth, out of those who have been given the Book,
until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a
state of subjection."
Surah 9:30 "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians
say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; those are the words of their mouths;
they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy
them; how they are turned away!"
That's it right there. Conquer, tax, humiliate, subjugate. Subsequently
codified in the Pact of Ulmar and practiced by Islamic despots for
centuries.
**************
John Reidar Mathiassen wrote in message ...
Poul
> > > I stated it my post that I look upon attacks on civilians in Israel as
> > > terrorism. That includes, as you pointed out, suicide bombers. So don't
> call
> > > me a moron with a frozen brain!! It is totally uncalled for!
> > But you excluded from your condemnation terrorist attacks on settlers who
> > are also civilians.
> I didn't include, but I did not exclude. I raised the following question:
> If a group of people settle occupied territories,
Which has nothing to do with Israeli settlers...
> and in some cases arm
> themselves with guns (for self defense of
> the occupied territories), are they aggressors or defendors?
They are civilians, and murdering them is terrorism.
> I agree that any killing of civilians is terrorism, especially women and
> children. The problem is that occupying territories, and destroying existing
> homes to build new homes for ones own population
Which also isn't happening in Israel...
> is an aggressive action (in
> many cases one can almost define it as an act of war).
Then you take it with enemy's army, not women and children.
> Illegal expansion of ones territories, destruction of homes, and expulsion
> of people is wrong.
Which also has nothing to do with Israel...
> Living on occupied land is wrong.
How about "disputed" territories?
> Killing civilians on
> occupied land is also wrong. Essentially what has happened is that the
> occupation is an act of war,
What act of war? Arabs started war for extermination of Israel in
1947 and didn't stop until that day.
> where the civilians (Israeli) are placed just behind the front line.
> > > The discussion I wanted to raise is the definition of terrorism. And in
> > > light of this definition, can e.g. attacks on IDF occupation forces be
> > By calling them "occupation forces" you are already passing the judgement.
> Sorry for the biased label. I raise the same question regarding IDF troops
> operating in palestinian controlled territories. Is an attack on these
> troops to be considered a terrorist attack?
Depends who attacks. If attack is by group that is not affiliated with
elected authorities - PA - it is terror. If it is an attack by PA,
sanctioned by its officials, it is an act of war. If PA, sending
its people to attack IDF, still maintains facade of peace with Israel,
it is terrorism as well.
> > > called terrorism. And can attacks on civilian palestinians be called
> > > terrorism.
> > Of course, if you can prove that it was a deliberate attack on
> > civilian palestinians.
> I am not sure of this, but I think there have been many attacks on
> palestinians in recent times, which involved the killing of civilians.
You think wrong. All attacks were on terrorists. Sometimes civilian
bystanders are killed, unfortunately. It is collateral damage, not
terrorism.
> If so, the IDF is also responsible for terrorism.
> However, I think both sides should stop the violence.
Easier said than done...
> Palestinians should stop the suicide bombing, mortar fires and bus bombing
> (due to it's brutality and realizing it probably does not do them any good,
> as Arafat also stated in his speech dec. 16).
Arafat always speaks from both sides of his mouth.
> Also, Israeli troops should retreat from the occupied territories
"Disputed" territories, remember?
Anyway, IDF is in PA controlled areas ONLY because of Palestinian terror.
Israel voluntarily withdrew from them, remember?
So you claim that "both sides should" is really a moronic one, i am
sorry. Palestinian terror is a cause. IDF cannot just allow Palestinian
terrorists to massacre Israeli civilians at free will. It will stay
until terror stops. It may - and should - even increase its actions
if terror continues.
> and stop harassing and killing civilian palestinians.
If you have an idea how can they fight terror without occationally
"harassing and killing civilian palestinians", tell us. Copy
your ideas to US DOD and NATO headquaters - you may also save
quite a few Afdhan lives.
> Both sides need to sacrifice something for the benefit of a
> peaceful future.
Israel sacrificed a lot. In return, it received more terror.
AC
> What act of war? Arabs started war for extermination of Israel in
> 1947 and didn't stop until that day.
Prior to 1947 Israel didn't exist. For the previous 50 years or so the Jews
had been moving in from Russia and European countries, displacing the Arabs
who lived there for many centuries. Why wouldn't the Arabs object to that
and fight against it?
It reminds me of the Indians in America. When the Europeans moved in, they
met resistance from the natives. The white man regarded the natives as a
pest to be eradicated. This too is the attitude of the Israelis to the
Arabs.
AC
> Not at all. Terrorist is anyone who perform acts of terror, and anyone
> who helps or harbors them. Very simple, no need to label anyone.
The Israeli army have performed countless acts of terror against the
Palestinians including the killing of incoent children. Therefore, the
Israeli government and army are terrorists.
AC
> What act of war? Arabs started war for extermination of Israel in
> 1947 and didn't stop until that day.
Prior to 1947 Israel didn't exist. For the previous 50 years or so the Jews
Henry
centers and killing Americans?
AC wrote:
--
And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free, and the land of the brave!
Francis Scott Key
Albert Reingewirtz
"AC" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
At the same time Arabs moved in for Syria, Egypt. The "Chairman" himself
is the master terrorist from Egypt.
As for the attitude of Israeli's toward Arabs. About 20% of Israel's
population are Arabs and they like it this way so much that many
volonteer to serve in the IDF to protect their country. As an example
just yesterday a Major and 3 soldiers were killed by two Hamas
terrorists before being killed by those Israeli's serving with them in
the outpost attacked. By the way both the major and the soldiers were
Bedouins who are serving in the IDF by choice. They gave their life in
the defense of their country, Israel.
Compare this with all Arab countries where Jews have been ethnically
cleansed. Virtually no Jew remains in any Arab country or Iran.
If I were you, I would cry day and night for all the massacres Assad
perpetrated in Syria or his invasion of Lebanon he now owns as a colony
of Syria. Ya maskoun, elchas tizi!
Albert Reingewirtz
"AC" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Ya chmar! Ya kazab!
I.R.
>
> > What act of war? Arabs started war for extermination of Israel in
> > 1947 and didn't stop until that day.
>
> Prior to 1947 Israel didn't exist. For the previous 50 years or so the
Jews
> had been moving in from Russia and European countries, displacing the
Arabs
> who lived there for many centuries. Why wouldn't the Arabs object to that
> and fight against it?
Wrong. It were the Jewish people who lived on
Israel's land for millenias. Its was the Arabs who
flowed onto Israel's land illegally during the
early 20th century from surrounding Arab
countries who attempted to displace the
Jews. The Arabs are mere squatters and should
get OFF Israel's land.
>
> It reminds me of the Indians in America. When the Europeans moved in, they
> met resistance from the natives. The white man regarded the natives as a
> pest to be eradicated. This too is the attitude of the Israelis to the
> Arabs.
Actually, exactly the opposite is true in this case with
the exception that it is the INDIANS (Israelis) who have
taken control of the land. The illegal Arabs should get
OFF Israel's land -- no one wants these SQUATTERS.
ir
I.R.
AC is clearly an Arab/Muslim Terrorist sympathizer
and should be viewed as such from now on.
As we all know these Arab Terrorist Sympathizers
lie, cheat, steal and even kill on behalf of the Arab
Terrorists they so cherish. Let's remember how
much they lie -- non-stop.
ir
AC
> So you believe the Native Americans(Indians) should start blowing up
shopping
> centers and killing Americans?
No, because it happened hundreds of years ago and it would do no good for
them now. However, back in the days when the Indians attacked and killed the
white settlers (including women and childern) I believe they were justified
then, although unfortunately for them it was a hopeless situation.
AC
> and should be viewed as such from now on.
> As we all know these Arab Terrorist Sympathizers
> lie, cheat, steal and even kill on behalf of the Arab
> Terrorists they so cherish. Let's remember how
> much they lie -- non-stop.
Just like your views on the Arab-Jew conflict, your views on me are
completely wrong. I have no allegiances to either side, I am viewing this
conflict from the outside (I'm from Ireland). I have weighed up the evidence
on both sides over the years and it is obvious to me that the Israelis are
the agressors in this situation. I have no reglious allegiances that would
bias me, I am an athiest, but I believe in religious freedom (even if the
memebrs of that religion don't believe in religious freedom, which is the
case with most religions).
As for your accusations of lieing, cheating and killing, these are just
completely groundless accusations just like you and your narrowminded type
would make on all people who have a different opinion than you.
AC
I.R.
irnews:3c3ccc09$0$15886$4c41...@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
Tooting his own horn won't help here.
I am definitely neutral, and have decided that
The Arabs lead by the Arab Terrorist maggots
are the aggressors, and have been the aggressors
since the 7th Century A.D.
That's a long streak of violence by these Arabs.
It's time for it to stop -- PERMANENTLY.
ir
AC
- clearly the words of a RACIST.
I.R.
> "...Arab Terrorist maggots..."
>
> - clearly the words of a RACIST.
Only to a maggot defending Arab Terrorists
and International Terrorism in general.
The slimy Arab Terrorist maggots really
ARE that: MAGGOTS. Arab Terrorists
are not a race, they are a disease that
MUST be eliminated before it kills
too many innocents around the world.
ir
Kamal Jhakhi
Not really. The European settlers moved into land occupied by the
American Indians, who had a very real and legitimate claim to that
land. The Jews returned to their historical land to find it occupied
by squatters from the neighboring Arab countries of Egypt, Jordan,
Syria and Lebanon. There is NO such thing as a Palestinian people or
historical land. The Jews of the new state of Israel attempted to live
in peace with their neighbors, as its 20% Arab population suggests. I
have seen nothing from the Arabs of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc.
that suggests anything but hatred for all things Jewish and the desire
for the annihilation of Israel.
Kamal Jhakhi
> "Stick this in your frozen brain, moron!"
>
> it or not) a 'moron' does not say much for your intelligence.
Neither does reposting something you just posted a few minutes ago.
Kamal Jhakhi
> "I.R." wrote:
> > No one is oppressing these Arab SQUATTERS.
> > If they don't like their lives they can get OFF
> > Israel's land
>
> If the land in Palestine truly belonged to the Israelis, there would
> have been no need for the Zionist movement in 1896. The Zionist
> movement began because the Jews wanted to take the land from the
> Palestinians. Almost nobody in America (or Australia) knows anything
> about history.
make your false accusations such as the one above.
>
> Also, the US government and media try to manipulate Americans.
>
> For example, many news reports about the World Trade Center and
> Afghanistan find
> a way to slip in a remark about the dead people, like this:
>
> "U.S. warplanes bombed a village in Afghanistan today that was
> believed to be a hideout for the terrorist group that attacked the
> World Trade Center, which killed more than 3000 people."
>
>
> This is a not very subtle attempt at manipulation. Is the US
> government and/or media worried that we will stop hating the Arabs?
Americans did not, by and large, hate the Arabs...before September 11.
You reap what you sow.
> The above material came from this:
> http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Manipulation.html
Ok, I'll take some anti-American, antisemitic aol member's personal
web page as gospel....not.
dlt...@yahoo.com
>>1947 and didn't stop until that day.
AC says...
>Prior to 1947 Israel didn't exist.
"Israel is destroyed, its seed is no more." Merneptah Stele, 13thC BCE.
>For the previous 50 years or so the Jews had been moving in from
>Russia and European countries, displacing the Arabs who lived there
>for many centuries.
Jews had been living in Israel for over 3,000 years. The new immigrants
from Russia and Europe - and Egypt and Yemen - PURCHASED land from the
Arab/Turkish landowners.
>It reminds me of the Indians in America. When the Europeans moved in, they
>met resistance from the natives. The white man regarded the natives as a
>pest to be eradicated. This too is the attitude of the Israelis to the
>Arabs.
Backwards analogy. Jews had been living in Israel for over a millennium
when Arabs invaded in the 7thC CE.
Deborah
Poul
> > Not at all. Terrorist is anyone who perform acts of terror, and anyone
> > who helps or harbors them. Very simple, no need to label anyone.
> The Israeli army have performed countless acts of terror against the
> Palestinians
You are lying. Name one.
> including the killing of incoent children. Therefore, the
"Killing" is not a terror. Murdering them is terror - which
is Palestinian speciality.
> Israeli government and army are terrorists.
And you are Pope.
Poul
> > What act of war? Arabs started war for extermination of Israel in
> > 1947 and didn't stop until that day.
> Prior to 1947 Israel didn't exist. For the previous 50 years or so the Jews
> had been moving in from Russia and European countries, displacing the Arabs
> who lived there for many centuries.
What do you mean "displacing"? They just bought the land.
And vast majority of Arabs moved into this area ***following***
Jews who created prosperity and jobs.
> Why wouldn't the Arabs object to that and fight against it?
OK, so if you buy a house in a new neighborhood and your
neighbors dislike you, by your logic they have a right to kill you...
AC
> from Russia and Europe - and Egypt and Yemen - PURCHASED land from the
> Arab/Turkish landowners.
>
The Israelis, mostly comprising of new immigrants who had no right to be
there, forced the non-Jewish people off their land who had been living there
for generations and took it by force. They used whatever dirty means they
could to drive out the Arabs including the creation of the absentee laws for
the specifc purpose of taking over the land from the locals. They planted
their settelements all around the existing Arab villages and made their life
hell to drive them out to refugee camps. Then they used their absentee laws
to claim the Arab properties. It was (and still is) a prime goal of Zionism
to drive out the Arabs from the new Israel they had created. - AC
I.R.
news:3c3d5541$0$20332$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
> > Jews had been living in Israel for over 3,000 years. The new immigrants
> > from Russia and Europe - and Egypt and Yemen - PURCHASED land from the
> > Arab/Turkish landowners.
> >
> That's total BS!
> The Israelis, mostly comprising of new immigrants who had no right to be
> there,
Wrong. We all know that the Arabs flowed illegally
onto Israel's land in the beginning of the 20th century.
They came from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan,
and other Arab countries. These Arabs are SQUATTERS
on Israel's land and those who are unhappy should get up
and go back.
ir
AC
people in Palestine were Arabs. The people flowing in at that time were the
Jews.
I.R.
Sorry. Anyone can pick up a copy of Joan Peters excellent book
FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL and learn the truth.
The lies that have been spread worldwide by the
overactive Anti-Semitic hatred spewing out of
the Arab countries has obviously done some
damage; this misguided poster is a good example.
ir
AC
Arabs:
On April 9th 1948 the combined Israeli forces of Lehi, Irgun and Palmach
attacked the Arab village of Deir Yassin with the goal of looting and
conquering part of the 'land of their forefathers'. According to Ben Zion
Cohen, the Irgun commander - "I gave the order that our fighters should not
enter a single house without using explosives or throwing a grenade or two
inside. I guess that caused the enemy many losses." Indeed the loses for the
Arabs were horrific. In one house a family of 28 were killed on the spot by
a grenade - they were the lucky ones. But the worst was to come as the
residents were finally on the run. The Jews masacered the fleeing
residents. They stood villagers up by the wall of a quarry and shot them.
They looted and plundered the entire village. According to Shimon Moneta, a
Haganah agent, "The bodies were piled up...The youth brigades came and tried
to burn them...Well it takes a lot of bodies to burn in the open air and
it's realy horrible". Any surviving Arabs were loaded onto trucks and taken
to Jerusalem in order to be displayed. A group were paraded through the
streets then shot. The remainder were left near the Demascus gate to fend
for themselves (these are the SQUATTERS that I.R. keeps referring to).
'PURCHASED' indeed!
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>The Israelis, mostly comprising of new immigrants who had no right to be
:>there,
You misspelled
"The JOOOOOZZZZZZZZ, who according to my handy Nazi handbook and as specified
by my Grand Wizard, have no right to live,".
[ snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
dlt...@yahoo.com
>>from Russia and Europe - and Egypt and Yemen - PURCHASED land from the
>>Arab/Turkish landowners.
AC says...
>That's total BS!
>The Israelis, mostly comprising of new immigrants who had no right to be
>there, forced the non-Jewish people off their land who had been living there
>for generations and took it by force. They used whatever dirty means they
>could to drive out the Arabs including the creation of the absentee laws for
>the specifc purpose of taking over the land from the locals. They planted
>their settelements all around the existing Arab villages and made their life
>hell to drive them out to refugee camps. Then they used their absentee laws
>to claim the Arab properties. It was (and still is) a prime goal of Zionism
>to drive out the Arabs from the new Israel they had created. - AC
Bullshit.
Deborah
dlt...@yahoo.com
>In the begining of the 20th century the vast majority of
>people in Palestine were Arabs. The people flowing in at that time were the
>Jews.
At the beginning of the 20thC, there was no Palestine.
Deborah
dlt...@yahoo.com
>Here's one specific example of how the Jews 'PURCHASED' the land from the
>Arabs:
>On April 9th 1948 the combined Israeli forces of Lehi, Irgun and Palmach
>attacked the Arab village of Deir Yassin with the goal of looting and
The Peace Encyclopedia:
Deir Yassin
The anti-Zionists often mention the phrase 'Deir Yassin' - why? What is it?
Why did the Jewish forces attack Deir Yassin?
Did the Jewish fighters massacre the residents of Deir Yassin? Were innocent
unnarmed men, women and children butchered and mutilated?
Did the Jewish fighters rape Arab women during the Deir Yassin battle?
How many were killed? Doesn't the Arab propagandist, Edward Said, claim that 250
people were killed in Deir Yassin?
Doesn't the Arab propagandist, Edward Said, claim that Menachem Begin admitted
in his book to being responsible for the 'massacre'?
What were the motivations of the various players in the propaganda about Deir
Yassin?
Isn't the massacre account of Deir Yassin more believable given the terrorism
that the Jewish thugs normally employed?
The anti-Zionists often mention the phrase 'Deir Yassin' - why? What is it?
For fifty years, critics of Israel have used the battle of Deir Yassin to
blacken the image of the Jewish State, alleging that Jewish fighters massacred
hundreds of Arab civilians during a battle in that Arab village near Jerusalem
in 1948.
- ZOA Press Release: March 9, 1998 - Deir Yassin: History of a Lie
One of the biggest thorns in the sides of the anti-Zionists has been the seeming
moral superiority of the returning Jewish refugees of the Diaspora in the
resurrection of the state for their nation. A seemingly impossible task for the
anti-Zionists is to deflect attention from their naughty Arab children - with
their terrorism, war-making, antisemitism, genocidal ideation, Holocaust denial,
human rights abuses, repression of basic freedoms, ethnic cleansing,
institutionalized rape and slavery. An awesome challenge indeed. Hence the need
to establish 'Moral Relativism' and 'Moral Equivalence'. What the anti-Zionists
needed was to show that the Jews too have perpetuated wrongs and evils of their
own, hence it then appears biased to hold the Arabs responsible for their
behavior if we don't also condemn the Jews.
Of course one would be hard-pressed to find any reasonable person who claimed
that the Jews could do no wrong. Indeed both Hitler and Mother Theresa have
undoubtedly made ethical mistakes - so do we then conclude that everyone is
morally eqivalent, that the world should not hold any single individuals or
groups responsible since we are all guilty? Most of us choose not to live in
such an anarchist's utopia; in order for society to function and protect our
individual safety, there must be moral standards - a right and a wrong, a good
and a bad, to be judged by social standards at the time.
But the effort to cloud such judgements on the Arabs is the goal of the
anti-Zionists. Some of them even claim that the Jews are the opressors and that
the Arabs are the victims. In order to establish this moral inversion, certain
historical events are held up as a banner of Jewish original sin. The single sin
most often showcased by the anti-Zionists is 'Deir Yassin'.
In 1948, the United Nations partitioned the western fraction of the British
Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish state and yet another Arab state. The Arab
world, instead of rejoicing the creation of a second Arab state in Palestine,
rejected the partition, desiring all of Palestine for themselves, and expressing
the intention to murder every single Jew: "This will be a war of Extermination
and a Massacre which will be remembered for generations to come ... Like the
great slaughters of the Mongols and the Crusaders". To fulfil that goal, 5 Arab
states invaded the new Jewish microstate. Each Arab villiage in western
Palestine had to decide for themselves what kind of role they were to play in
the war. The villiage of Deir Yassin decided to fully join the genocidal
adventures of the 5 invading Arab states, while a few Arab villages like the
nearby Abu Ghosh, decided not to participate.
Thus the villiage of Deir Yassin cast itself on the front lines of that terrible
war. What followed is hard to establish for a fact, but what is certain is that
both sides used the village for propaganda purposes, obscuring further what
happened there, and casting substantial doubt on the anti-Zionist claim of an
'equalizing' Jewish sin. For if this is the best the anti-Zionists can come up
with, then one can certainly understand their frustration.
- The Society for Rational Peace
Why did the Jewish forces attack Deir Yassin?
[Deir Yassin] was an integral, inseparable episode in the battle for
Jerusalem... [Arab forces] were attempting to cut the only highway linking
Jerusalem with Tel Aviv and the outside world. It had cut the pipeline upon
which the defenders depended for water. Palestinian Arab contingents, stiffened
by men of the regular Iraqi army, had seized vantage points overlooking the
Jerusalem road and from them were firing on trucks that tried to reach the
beleaguered city with vital food-stuffs and supplies. Dir Yassin, like the
strategic hill and village of Kastel, was one of these vantage points. In fact,
the two villages were interconnected militarily, reinforcements passing from Dir
Yassin to Kastel during the fierce engagement for that hill.
- Abba Eban, Background Notes on Current Themes - No.6: Dir Yassin (Jerusalem:
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Information Division, 16 March 1969)
This Arab village in 1948 sat in a key position high on the hill controlling
passage on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road. Those villagers were no different than
other nearby Arab villagers who were heavily armed, hostile and aggressive. They
also hosted a battle group from the Iraqi army. They had incessantly attacked
Jewish convoys trying to supply food and medical supplies to Jerusalem which was
under siege and cut-off by Arab armies in linkage with those same villagers.
They were killing many Jews. Deir Yassin was a staging area for the villagers
and regular army from various Arab armies. They were not innocents as proclaimed
by the Arab nations or the Jewish Revisionists.
- from Jewish Historical Revisionists, by Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East
Analyst & commentator
The Arab village of Deir Yassin was strategically situated on a hill overlooking
the main highway entering Jerusalem as well as a number of Jerusalem's western
neighborhoods. Estimates of the town's population in 1948 vary. The last
official British census, in 1945, counted 610 residents, and Arab sources
believe the number had grown to 750 by April 1948.2 The town was also host to
several hundred temporary residents who had relocated from other parts of
Jerusalem which were close to the battlefields where Arab and Jewish forces were
clashing.3 But because of Deir Yassin's strategic location, it was almost
inevitable that it, too, would become a battle site.
An "Arab Liberation Army," sponsored by the Arab League and manned by volunteers
from various Arab countries, attacked Jewish communities in Palestine throughout
the winter and spring of 1948. Their attacks on Jewish traffic along major
routes succeeded in cutting off western Jerusalem from other areas.
During the week prior to the IZL-Lehi action against Deir Yassin, there were a
spate of shooting attacks from the village aimed at Jewish targets in the area.
On Friday night, April 2, gunfire from the Deir Yassin area raked the adjacent
Jewish neighborhoods of Beit Hakerem and Bayit Vegan.21 On Sunday, April 4,
commander Shaltiel received an urgent message from the intelligence officer of
the Haganah's Etzioni division: "There's a gathering in Deir Yassin. Armed men
left [from Deir Yassin] in the direction of [the nearby town of] lower Motza,
northwest of Givat Shaul. They are shooting at passing cars."22 That same day ,
the deputy commander of the Haganah's Beit Horon brigade, Michael Hapt reported
to Shaltiel: "A [Jewish] passenger car from Motza was attacked near the flour
mill, below Deir Yassin, and is stopped there. There is rifle fire upon it. You
too send an armoured vehicle with weapons. There is concern that the road is cut
off."23 An armoured vehicle carrying Lehi fighters was also attacked at the same
spot that day. A Haganah intelligence officer who described the incident to his
superiors reported that according to Lehi officer David Gottlieb, those of his
men who disembarked from their vehicle to return fire said that the attackers
appeared to be Arab soldiers rather than local villagers.24 A telegram from
Michael Hapt, of the Haganah's Beit Horon brigade, to the Haganah command, at
5:00 p.m. that day, urged: "In order to prevent [an attack] on lower Motza,
cutting off of road to Jerusalem, and capture of position south of Tzova, Deir
Yassin must be captured."25
Shortly before the battle of Deir Yassin, there was additional troubling news:
Mordechai Gihon's lookouts reported that numerous armed men were moving between
Ein Kerem and Deir Yassin. Some of the soldiers were wearing Iraqi uniforms, and
while many of them had entered Deir Yassin, only a few had returned to Ein
Kerem.26 And just hours before the IZL-Lehi action against Deir Yassin began,
Shaltiel cabled his colleague Shimon Avidan: "The Arabs in Deir Yassin have
trained a mortar on the highway in order to shell the convoy [bringing supplies
to besieged Jewish portions of Jerusalem]."27
Footnotes:
2 Sharif Kanani and Nihad Zitawi, Deir Yassin, Monograph No.4, Destroyed
Palestinian Villages Documentation Project (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of
Bir Zeit University, 1987), p.6.
3 Uri Milstein, The War of Independence: Out of Crisis Came Decision - Volume IV
[Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Zmora-Bitan Publishers, 1991), p. 256.
21 "Shots in Jerusalem,"Davar, 4 April 1948, p.2.
22 Milstein, p. 257, citing the Israel Defense Forces Archives, War of
Independence Collection 88/17, "From Hashmonai," 4 April 1948, 10:00 A.M.
23 Milstein, p. 257, citing the Israel Defense Forces Archives, War of
Independence Collection 88/17, "From Sa'ar," 4 April 1948, 10:00 A.M.
24 Testimony of David Gottlieb, MZ; Milstein, pp.257-258, citing the Israel
Defense Forces Archives, War of Independence Collection 21/17, "From Hashmonai,"
4 April 1948.
25 Milstein, p. 258, citing "Operations Log - Arza," 4 April 1948, 17:00 hours,
Broadcast #562, Israel Defense Forces Archive, War of Independence Collection,
88/17.
26 Milstein, p.258 (interview with Mordechai Gihon).
27 Milstein, p.258, citing Israel Defense Forces Archive, War of Independence
Collection, 228/3, Operation Log, 9 April 1948, 2:40 a.m.
- from Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, ZOA Press Release: March 9, 1998
Did the Jewish fighters massacre the residents of Deir Yassin? Were innocent
unnarmed men, women and children butchered and mutilated?
The first of the Jewish fighting units to reach Deir Yassin was led by a truck
armed with a loudspeaker. An Iraqi-born Jew, who spoke fluent Arabic, called out
to the residents to leave via the western exit from Deir Yassin, which the
attackers had left clear for that purpose. Soon after entering the town,
however, the truck was hit by Arab gunfire and careened into a ditch. Repeated
efforts by Lehi men to extract the truck, while under fire, proved unsuccessful.
Whether or not the truck's message was heard by the villagers is unclear.
Several hundred Deir Yassin residents did flee, although it is not clear if they
were responding to the announcements, the sound of gunfire, or word-of-mouth
warnings from fellow-villagers close to the battle sites. The IZL and Lehi
commanders had expected that large numbers of the residents would flee, and the
remaining would surrender, perhaps after token resistance.
Instead, both groups of Jewish soldiers, entering the town from different sides,
immediately encountered fierce volleys of Arab rifle fire, some of it from the
foreign troops who had been reported in the area. IZL deputy commander Michael
Harif, who was one of the first to enter Deir Yassin, later recalled how, early
in the battle, "I saw a man in khaki run ahead. I thought he was one of us, I
ran after him and told him, 'Move ahead to that house!' Suddenly he turned,
pointed his weapon at me and fired. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was wounded in
the leg."31 Lehi's Patchiah Zalivensky later recalled that among the Arab
soldiers killed by his unit was a Yugoslavian Muslim officer, whose
identification papers indicated he had been with the all-Muslim units of the
Nazi SS that had been organized in Yugoslavia during World War II by Haj Amin
el-Husseini, the Palestinian Arab leader and Nazi collaborator.32 In an
alleyway, Lehi soldier Ezra Yachin came face to face with an Arab armed with a
rifle. Instantly he started to release the bolt. The measure of those fearful
seconds! Who would shoot first? Who would survive? It was I who pulled the
trigger first--but it didn't work. My foe turned to leap over an old wall, and
as he did so he shot at me. I felt a pain in my right thigh...Dror [Mordechai
Ben-Uziahu] had clambered up onto a rooftop from where he was able to spot my
assailant who was dressed in the uniform of an Iraqi officer, and shot him.33
The substantial quantities of weapons and ammunition that the IZL and Lehi men
found in Deir Yassin provided additional confirmation of earlier suspicions that
the village had been turning into a heavily-armed Arab military post.
Yehuda Lapidot, deputy commander of the IZL force in Deir Yassin, later
recalled: "A cache of ammunition for English rifles which we found in the
village saved the day. We filled the clips for the Bren [machine-gun],
distributed weapons to the boys and fought on." In another house, IZL fighter
Yehoshua Gorodenchik discovered an additional 20 clips of ammunition for the
Bren gun.34 Lehi soldiers David Gottlieb, Moshe Barzili, and Moshe Idelstein
found a huge quantity of Czech rifle bullets which did not fit their rifles;
they offered to trade 6,000 of them to the Haganah for 3,000 British bullets.35
The Jewish fighters' advance into Deir Yassin was painstakingly slow because of
the intense Arab firepower. The IZL's Reuven Greenberg reported later that "the
Arabs fought like lions and excelled at accurate sniping." He also noted that
"[Arab] women ran from the houses under fire, collected the weapons which had
fallen from the hands of Arab fighters who had been wounded, and brought them
back into the houses."36 There were also instances in which, after storming a
house, dead Arab women were found with guns in their hands, indicating that they
had taken part in the battle.37 "To take a house," Ezra Yachin recalled, "you
had either to throw a grenade or shoot your way into it. If you were foolish
enough to open doors, you got shot down--sometimes by men dressed up as women,
shooting out at you in a second of surprise."38
When they tried to storm some of the individual stone houses, the Lehi fighters
were surprised to discover that most of the homes had doors made of iron, not
wood as their pre-battle briefings had led them to believe. The attackers had no
choice but to attach powerful explosives to the doors to blow them open, and a
number of the inhabitants were inadvertently killed or wounded in the
explosions.39 Slowly, house by house, the Lehi forces advanced.
On the other side of the village, meanwhile, the IZL soldiers were having less
success. By 7:00 a.m., the IZL commanders, stymied by the Arab resistance and
their own mounting casualties, sent a messenger to the Lehi camp that they were
seriously considering retreating from the town altogether. The Lehi commanders
told the messenger to inform the IZL that Lehi had already penetrated the
village and expected victory soon. The IZL quickly arranged to receive a supply
of explosives from their base in Givat Shaul, and proceeded to blast their way
into house after house. In some cases, entire sections of the houses collapsed
from the force of the explosion, burying the Arab soldiers as well as civilians
who were still inside. It is unclear if the civilians had chosen to stay of
their own free, or were held hostage by Arab soldiers who thought that their
presence would deter the Jewish forces--a tactic frequently employed by Arab
terrorists in southern Lebanon in our own era.40 At the same time, there were
numerous instances of Arabs emerging from the houses and surrendering; more than
100 were taken prison by the end of the day. At least two Haganah members who
were on the scene later recalled hearing the Lehi repeatedly using a loudspeaker
to implore the residents to surrender.41 There were also instances in which
Arabs feigned surrender, then produced hidden weapons and shot at their would-be
Jewish captors.42
Footnotes:
31 Milstein interview with Harif, p.262.
32 Milstein, p.263 (interview with Zalivensky).
33 Yachin's testimony is quoted at length in Lynne Reid Banks, A Torn Country:
An Oral History of the Israeli War of Independence (New York: Franklin Watts,
1982), pp. 58-65.
34 Milstein, p.265 (interviews with Yehuda Lapidot and Yehoshua Gorodenchik).
35 Milstein, p.265, citing Israel Defense Forces Archive, Yitzhak Levy
collection, "Report of Yaakov Weg."
36 Testimony of Reuven Greenberg.
37 Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ.
38 Banks, op.cit., p.62.
39 Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ.
40 Milstein, pp.264-265, interviews with Ezra Yachin, Mordechai Ra'anan, Benzion
Cohen and Yehuda Lapidot; Testimonies of Mordechai Ra'anan, Benzion Cohen, and
Yehuda Lapidot.
41 Milstein, p.263, interview with Uri Brenner; Daniel Spicehandler's testimony,
quoted in Ralph G. Martin, Golda: Golda Meir - The Romantic Years (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988), p.329.
42 Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ. Benny Morris, a harsh critic of the
IZL and Lehi, has characterized Gorodenchik's testimony as "confused." (Morris,
The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (New York and London: Cambridge
University Press, 1987), p.323, n.175.
- from Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, ZOA Press Release: March 9, 1998
"The Jews never intended to harm the population of the village, but were forced
to do so after they encountered fire from the population, which killed the Irgun
commander."
- Yunes Ahmed Assad, a Deir Yassin survivor, Al Urdun (Jordanian Newspaper),
April 9, 1953, quoted by the Israel Office of Information, under Golda Meir,
1960
Did the Jewish fighters rape Arab women during the Deir Yassin battle?
Arab propagandists routinely claim that the Jewish fighters raped Arab women
during the Deir Yassin battle, but evidence to support the allegation is
lacking. To begin with, the charge of sexual assault is completely at variance
with the behavior of Jewish soldiers throughout both the 1948 war and subsequent
Arab-Israeli wars. (By contrast, Arabs frequently raped Jewish women during Arab
attacks on Jewish communities, such as the 1929 riots in Hebron.)
As noted earlier, Dr. Engel, who accompanied Jacques de Reynier of the Red
Cross, reported that he "did not see any signs of defilement, mutilation, or
rape."75 Daniel Spicehandler, a member of a Haganah unit sent to assist the IZL,
said later: "So far as I saw, there was no rape or looting."76 An Arab survivor
of the Deir Yassin battle, Muhammad Arif Sammour, told author Eric Silver
emphatically that there were no sexual attacks. Silver wrote: "Sammour, who has
no reason to minimize the atrocities, is convinced that there were no sexual
assault: 'I didn't hear or see anything of rape or attacks on pregnant women.
None of the other survivors ever talked to me about that kind of thing. If
anybody told you that, I don't believe it.'"77 Sammour's statement is
corroborated by the testimony of two Jewish doctors physicians, Drs. Z. Avigdori
and A. Droyan. At the request of the Jewish Agency, Avigdori and Droyan were
sent by the Histadrut Medical Committee [the Labor Zionist-affiliated trade
union], in Jerusalem, to Deir Yassin on Monday, April 12. They examined the
bodies and reported that "all the bodies were clothed, the limbs were intact,
and no sign of mutilation was visible on them."78
The original source of the Deir Yassin rape accusation was a senior British
police official. Since the British Mandatory authorities were still in power at
the time of the Deir Yassin battle--they were not due to leave Palestine until
May 15, more than a month later--the British police carried out their own
investigation of the events, led by Richard C. Catling, Assistant Inspector
General of the Mandatory regime's Criminal Investigation Division and a
specialist in Jewish matters.
Catling was not, however, the most objective person to be investigating whether
or not the IZL and Lehi had carried out atrocities against Arab civilians.
For much of the previous decade, Catling had played a prominent role in the
Mandate regime's violent struggles with the Jewish fighting forces and with the
IZL and Lehi in particular, who had assassinated numerous leading British police
officers and military officials, and had publicly humiliated the English forces
with retaliatory hangings, public whippings, assaults on supposedly-invulnerable
police stations and army bases, and spectacular prison breaks. Catling himself
narrowly escaped death at the IZL's hands on more than one occasion. He was at
British police headquarters in Jerusalem during an IZL raid in 1944, in which a
colleague of his was killed, and one of the suspects captured. While Catling was
brutally beating the suspect, an IZL bomb shook the station. "John Scott was a
good friend of mine," Catling later recalled. "We had this unfortunate suspect
in [Inspector-General Arthur] Giles's office and I was knocking him about like
hell. I freely admit it. Then the bomb went off. We were thrown across the room,
and covered in plaster." Two years later, Catling happened to be standing near
the reception desk in the main lobby of the King David Hotel --military
headquarters of the British Mandate regime--when the IZL bombed it in 1946. At
the sound of the massive explosion, Catling dove under the reception desk and
was saved.79
Catling visited the Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan five days after the battle
of Deir Yassin, and interviewed a number of Arab women who said they had been at
Deir Yassin the previous week. "The majority of those women are very shy and
reluctant to relate their experiences especially in matters concerning sexual
assault and they need great coaxing before they will divulge any information,"
Catling wrote. When he was finished "coaxing" them, Catling was able to conclude
that "many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews." According to
Catling, "many young school girls were raped and later slaughtered," "old women
were also molested," "many infants were also butchered," and "one story is
current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two."80
Catling may have been understandably eager to believe any allegation made
against the hated IZL and Lehi, but the lack of corroboration from other
sources, combined with Catling's likely bias and his own admission that he
engaged in "great coaxing" of the Arab women he interviewed, raises serious
doubts as to the veracity of their allegations.
Footnotes:
75 Milstein, pp.269-270 (interview with Alfred Engel, 7 December 1987).
76 Spicehandler testimony in Martin, op.cit.
77 Silver, p.95
78 David Shaltiel, Jerusalem 1948, p.140; Aryeh Yitzhaki, "Deir Yassin--Not
Through a Warped Mirror," Yediot Ahronot, 14 April 1972, p.17.
79 Thurston Clarke, By Blood and Fire: July 22, 1946 - The Attack on Jerusalem's
King David Hotel (New York: G.P.Putnam's Sons, 1981), p.224; Nicholas Bethell,
The Palestine Triangle: The Struggle for the Holy Land, 1935-48 (New York:
G.P.Putnam's Sons, 1979) p.156.
80 A long excerpt from Catling's report may be found in Collins and Lapierre,
p.276.
- from Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, ZOA Press Release: March 9, 1998
How many were killed? Doesn't the Arab propagandist, Edward Said, claim that 250
people were killed in Deir Yassin?
"Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants [were
killed], while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000."
- Dan Kurzman, in Genesis 1948, (OH: New American Library, Inc., 1970)
"...representatives of each of the five clans in Deir Yassin met in Jerusalem in
the Moslem offices near the Al Aqsa mosque and made a list of the people who had
not been found. We went through the names. It came to 116. Nothing has happened
since 1948 to make me think this figure was wrong."
- Muhammad Arif Sammour, quoted in Begin: The Haunted Prophet, by Eric Silver
"I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will
not forgive the liars," said Radwan, who puts the number of villagers killed at
93, listed in his own handwriting. "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There
were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put
out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from
all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."
- Mohammed Radwan, fought and survived the Deir Yassin battle, reported by Paul
Holmes, Middle East Times, 20-April-1998
In 1987, the Research and Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, a
prominent Arab university in the territory now controlled by the Palestinian
Authority, published a comprehensive study of the history of Deir Yassin, as
part of its "Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project." The Center's
findings concerning Deir Yassin were published, in Arabic only, as the fourth
booklet in its "Destroyed Arab Villages Series."
The purpose of the project, according to its directors, is "to gather
information from persons who lived in these villages and were directly familiar
with them, and then to compare these reports and publish them in order to
preserve for future generations the special identity and particular
characteristics of each village."88
The Bir Zeit study's description of the 1948 battle of Deir Yassin began with
the hyperbole typical of many accounts of the event, calling it "a massacre the
likes of which history has rarely known."89 But unlike the authors of any other
previous study of Deir Yassin, the Bir Zeit researchers tracked down the
surviving Arab eyewitness to the attack and personally interviewed each of them.
"For the most part, we have gathered the information in this monograph during
the months of February-May 1985 from Deir Yassin natives living in the Ramallah
region, who were extremely cooperative," the Bir Zeit authors explained, listing
by name twelve former Deir Yassin residents whom they had interviewed concerning
the battle. The study continued: "The [historical] sources which discuss the
Deir Yassin massacre unanimously agree that number of victims ranges between
250-254; however, when we examined the names which appear in the various
sources, we became absolutely convinced that the number of those killed does not
exceed 120, and that the groups which carried out the massacre exaggerated the
numbers in order to frighten Palestinian residents into leaving their villages
and cities without resistance."90 The authors concluded: "Below is a list of the
names and ages of those killed at Deir Yassin in the massacre which took place
on April 9, 1948, which was compiled by us on the basis of the testimony of Deir
Yassin natives. We have invested great effort in checking it and in making
certain of each name on it, such that we can say, with no hesitation, that it is
the most accurate list of its type until today." A list of 107 people killed and
twelve wounded followed.91
Footnotes:
88 Kanani and Zitawi, Deir Yassin (Bir Zeit study), p.5.
89 Ibid., p.7.
90 Ibid., pp.7-.8.
91 Ibid., p.57.
- from Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, ZOA Press Release: March 9, 1998
Doesn't the Arab propagandist, Edward Said, claim that Menachem Begin admitted
in his book to being responsible for the 'massacre'?
From "The Revolt", by Menachem Begin, Dell Publishing, NY, 1977, pp. 225-227
"Apart from the military aspect, there is a moral aspect to the story of Dir
Yassin. At that village, whose name was publicized throughout the world, both
sides suffered heavy casualties. We had four killed and nearly forty wounded.
The number of casualties was nearly forty percent of the total number of the
attackers. The Arab troops suffered casualties neraly three times as heavy. The
fighting was thus very severe. Yet the hostile propaganda, disseminated
throughout the world, deliberately ignored the fact that the civilian population
of Dir Yassin was actually given a warning by us before the battle began. One of
our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed at the entrance to the village
and it exhorted in Arabic all women, children and aged to leave their houses and
to take shelter on the slopes of the hill. By giving this humane warning our
fighters threw away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their
own risk in the ensuing battle. A substantial number of the inhabitants obeyed
the warning and they were unhurt. A few did not leave their stone houses -
perhaps because of the confusion. The fire of the enemy was murderous - to which
the number of our casualties bears eloquent testimony. Our men were compelled to
fight for every house; to overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand
grenades. And the civilians who had disregarded our warnings suffered inevitable
casualties.
"The education which we gave our soldiers throughout the years of revolt was
based on the observance of the traditional laws of war. We never broke them
unless the enemy first did so and thus forced us, in accordance with the
accepted custom of war, to apply reprisals. I am convinced, too, that our
officers and men wished to avoid a single unnecessary casualty in the Dir Yassin
battle. But those who throw stones of denunciation at the conquerors of Dir
Yassin would do well not to don the cloak of hypocrisy.
"In connection with the capture of Dir Yassin the Jewish Agency found it
necessary to send a letter of apology to Abdullah, whom Mr. Ben Gurion, at a
moment of great political emotion, called 'the wise ruler who seeks the good of
his people and this country.' The 'wise ruler,' whose mercenary forces
demolished Gush Etzion and flung the bodies of its heroic defenders to birds of
prey, replied with feudal superciliousness. He rejected the apology and replied
that the Jews were all to blame and that he did not believe in the existence of
'dissidents.' Throughout the Arab world and the world at large a wave of lying
propaganda was let loose about 'Jewish attrocities.'
"The enemy propaganda was designed to besmirch our name. In the result it helped
us. Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel. Kolonia village, which had
previously repulsed every attack of the Haganah, was evacuated overnight and
fell without further fighting. Beit-Iksa was also evacuated. These two places
overlooked the main road; and their fall, together with the capture of Kastel by
the Haganah, made it possible to keep open the road to Jerusalem. In the rest of
the country, too, the Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed
with Jewish forces. Not what happened at Dir Yassin, but what was invented about
Dir Yassin, helped to carve the way to our decisive victories on the
battlefield. The legend of Dir Yassin helped us in particular in the saving of
Tiberias and the conquest of Haifa".
A footnote from "The Revolt", pp.226-7
"To counteract the loss of Dir yassin, a village of strategic importance, Arab
headquarters at Ramallah broadcast a crude atrocity story, alleging a massacre
by Irgun troops of women and children in the village. Certain Jewish officials,
fearing the Irgun men as political rivals, seized upon this Arab gruel
propaganda to smear the Irgun. An eminent Rabbi was induced to reprimand the
Irgun before he had time to sift the truth. Out of evil, however, good came.
This Arab propaganda spread a legend of terror amongst Arabs and Arab troops,
who were seized with panic at the mention of Irgun soldiers. The legend was
worth half a dozen battalions to the forces of Israel. The `Dir Yassin Massacre'
lie is still propagated by Jew-haters all over the world".
What were the motivations of the various players in the propaganda about Deir
Yassin?
The Arab Higher Committee hoped exaggerated reports about a "massacre" at Deir
Yassin would shock the population of the Arab countries into bringing pressure
on their governments to intervene in Palestine. Instead, the immediate impact
was to stimulate a new Palestinian exodus.
- from Deir Yassin, by Mitchell Bard of JSOURCE
I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, "We must make the
most of this". So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children
were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.
- Hazen Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news
in 1948, was interviewed for the BBC television series "Israel and the Arabs:
the 50-year conflict." He describes an encounter with Deir Yassin survivors and
Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi, the secretary of the Arab Higher
Committee, at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City.
..for a clearer picture on the Dir Yassin scene I suggest that you read the new
detailed research by Uri Milstein which proves quite convincingly that the
"Massacre" in DY was a fiction of the Hagana in order to smear the Irgun & Lehi.
The Number of 254 of killed is a complete fiction which was very convenient to
everyone (Hagana, Irgun,Arabs [to perpetrate anger and unite the Arabs] and
British] The real number is 110.
Most of the horror stories from a scene was fabricated by an Hagana officer Meir
Pail(pilavsky) which was not in the scene, but tried to manufacture a horrid
version of the story. [He was one of the most vigoros anti-Irgun officers and
did nothing to hide it].
All this information and a lot more [about Palmach's part in the conquest of the
village and the lack of any evidence for sexual abuse in the bodies by the
Hagana and Red Cross although Pail claimed that he saw sexual abuse] can be read
in Milstein's history book:
"History of the Independence War Volume 4: From Crisis came Decision" by Uri
Milstein.
A very interesting newpaper article is "There was no Massacre there" by Yerach
Tal Ha'Aretz 8.9.91 Page B3 which reviews the Milstein research with reactions
which are quite unconvincing from Pail and others.
Another article which views the Arab side "Massacre was done there" by Dani
Rubinstein Ha'Aretz 11.9.91 Page B2 states that in a new Bir-Zeit research of
the affair the number of killed was estimated at 107. The claims were much
exagerrated by Arab media and hearsay while the Jews did nothing to reveal the
truth from propaganda and internal considerations reasons.
All these sources had vested interest in exasgerating the truth. Irgun: To
frighten the Arabs. Hagana: To frighten the Arabs, to throw mud on the Irgun.
British: To throw mud on the Jews (and praticularly Irgun). Arabs: to unify and
envigorate Arab anger against the Jews and indeed this resulted in the Hadassa
masscare of 78 Jewish doctors and nurses. This also created a by-product effect
not desired by Arabs of enormous fear from the Jews.
Isn't the massacre account of Deir Yassin more believable given the terrorism
that the Jewish thugs normally employed?
..I love it when PLO supporters complain about terrorism. As for Irgun and Lehi
terror, it is a well known fact that all means were taken to avoid targetting
civilians.
Lehi and Irgun targetted British military officials most of the time. Even the
bombing of the King David Hotel was preceded by a warning by the Irgun calling
for evacuation. Read up on Deir Yassin - it isn't as clear cut of a case of
massacre as you think - there are several good accounts which contradict your
version of the story. Once again, have you ever heard of Gush Etzion? Sorry, the
arguments go both ways here.
Certainly there have been instances where Israel may have attacked civilians.
Even if I grant you Deir Yassin (which I don't) there has never been any Israeli
policy to attack civilians even comparable to the Palestinians' war of terror
against Israeli civilians. Nothing even comes close to PLO terror which (along
with the sentiments of Arab states to drive the Jews into the sea) is an
organized campaign to kill innocent people. To even compare what Israel has done
is like comparing apples and oranges.
There were many more incidents when "thugs" called off an operation (attack on
British officer) just becuase his wife was in the car, and risked brutal
punishment (or even death) when captures. another story tells about a group of
"thugs" who planed derailing a British ,military train and in the last minute
they noticed that the wrong train is going to be hurt and in personal danger
removed the bomb. This is true of all 3 organizations.
I think that Israelis would have been in deep trouble if they had such a rivals
in the Arab side - Heroic yet human fighters would have made a lot more imapct
than the cowards of Munchen/Maalot/Sabena/BG Airport etc.
Pushing busses over the cliff, putting bombs in bread loaves is both less
hurting and antagonized the whole world toward the PLO.
WWW RESOURCES:
Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, ZOA Press Release: March 9, 1998
Deir Yassin, by Mitchell Bard of JSOURCE
Deir Yassin, by Prof. Yehuda Lapidot, from the Irgun site
Deir Yassin a casualty of guns and propaganda, by Paul Holmes, Middle East
Times, 20-April-1998
BOOKS & PRINTED MATERIAL:
"There was no Massacre there" by Yerach Tal, in Ha'Aretz 8.9.91, page B3
"History of the Independence War Volume 4: From Crisis came Decision" by Uri
Milstein.
Poul
> No, you're wrong. In the begining of the 20th century the vast majority of
> people in Palestine were Arabs.
In the begining of the 20th century the vast majority of land was totally
empty and useless.
> The people flowing in at that time were the Jews.
And Arabs who followed the prosperity and jobs created by Jews
AC
> At the beginning of the 20thC, there was no Palestine.
>
> Deborah
While it may not have been an independant state at the beginning of the
20thC, the land of Palestine was most definatly there. Palestine was the
name of the region at that time (The British did not make it up!). Arabs
lived under the control of the Islamic Ottoman Empire for more then 1350
years before the British mandate on Palestine. Before 20thC, there were no
independent Arab countries, only Arab emirates under one Islamic empire.
After the World War I and World War II, Arab countries got there
independence from the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the modern states were
created. Palestine should have been created if Jews did not start migrating
to Palestinian lands, with the help of the British. The number of Jews in
Palestine was small in the early 20th century; it increased from 12,000 in
1845 to nearly 85,000 by 1914 which was still a very small percentage of the
overall population. Most people in Palestine at that time were Arabic
speaking Muslims and Christians.
dlt...@yahoo.com
>>Deborah
AC says...
>While it may not have been an independant state at the beginning of the
>20thC, the land of Palestine was most definatly there. Palestine was the
>name of the region at that time (The British did not make it up!).
Israel and Lebanon were parts of the Vilayet of Beirut, Jordan and
Syria were parts of the Vilayet of Damascus.
>Arabs
>lived under the control of the Islamic Ottoman Empire for more then 1350
>years before the British mandate on Palestine.
The Ottomans didn't take the region until the 16thC.
>Before 20thC, there were no
>independent Arab countries, only Arab emirates under one Islamic empire.
The "Islamic Empire" is a myth.
>Palestine should have been created if Jews did not start migrating
>to Palestinian lands, with the help of the British.
Jews were already in "Palestine". The British were an impediment
to Jewish immigration.
Deborah
AC
you can't deny:
During the 1300 years of Muslim rule prior to the fall of the Ottoman
Empire:
"The Muslim rulers did not force their religion on the Palestinians, and
more than a century passed before the majority converted to Islam. The
remaining Christians and Jews were considered "People of the Book." They
were allowed autonomous control in their communities and guaranteed security
and freedom of worship. Such tolerance (with few exceptions) was rare in the
history of religion. Most Palestinians also adopted Arabic and Islamic
culture."
"In 1880, Arab Palestinians constituted about 95 percent of the total
population."
In addition here's another FACT quoted from LonelyPlannet to back up what I
am saying:
"Britain opened a consulate in Jerusalem, and in 1839 Sir Moses Montefiore,
a British Jew, began promoting the idea of a Jewish state. In 1878 the first
Jewish colony was founded, and before long the first Aliyah, or wave of
immigrants, had started."
And yes there is truth in what you said that the British were impeeding
Jewish immigration but that was after immigration hade gone out of control
and the British realize the disaster they had created.
AC
The facts are undisputible. The Zionists can give them a different spin to
make themselves not look so bad but even with the best spin what happend
there and all over Palestine was wrong. These are the facts as laid down in
"The fifty years' war : Israel and the Arabs", written by Ahron Bregman and
Jihan El-Tahri, a Jew and an Arab which makes it uniquely unbiased. It is
also a BBC and PBS documentary series - hardly Anti-Zionists. The living
attackers and survivors were interviewed for the series. Even the account
given by the Jewish attackers is horrific. There is no bias, just FACTS.
Red Herring
>
>> What act of war? Arabs started war for extermination of Israel in
>> 1947 and didn't stop until that day.
>
>Prior to 1947 Israel didn't exist. For the previous 50 years or so the Jews
>had been moving in from Russia and European countries, displacing the Arabs
>who lived there for many centuries.
Nonsense:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We got away from Bethlehem and its troops of beggars and relic-peddlers in
the afternoon, and after spending some little time at Rachel's tomb, hurried
to Jerusalem as fast as possible. I never was so glad to get home again
before. I never have enjoyed rest as I have enjoyed it during these last few
hours. The journey to the Dead Sea, the Jordan and Bethlehem was short, but
it was an exhausting one. Such roasting heat, such oppressive solitude, and
such dismal desolation can not surely exist elsewhere on earth. ...
Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse
that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. Where Sodom and
Gomorrah reared their domes and towers, that solemn sea now floods the
plain, in whose bitter waters no living thing exists -- over whose waveless
surface the blistering air hangs motionless and dead -- about whose borders
nothing grows but weeds, and scattering tufts of cane, and that treacherous
fruit that promises refreshment to parching lips, but turns to ashes at the
touch. Nazareth is forlorn; about that ford of Jordan where the hosts of
Israel entered the Promised Land with songs of rejoicing, one finds only a
squalid camp of fantastic Bedouins of the desert; Jericho the accursed, lies
a moldering ruin, to-day, even as Joshua's miracle left it more than three
thousand years ago; Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and their
humiliation, have nothing about them now to remind one that they once knew
the high honor of the Saviour's presence; the hallowed spot where the
shepherds watched their flocks by night, and where the angels sang Peace on
earth, good will to men, is untenanted by any living creature, and unblessed
by any feature that is pleasant to the eye. Renowned Jerusalem itself, the
stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become
a pauper village...[so much for the third holiest city of Islam]
(Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
"I don't know a man, woman, or child who was not happy about what happened
in the U.S. [on 9/11/2001]" (Abdullah Al-Sabeh, a professor of psychology at
Riyadh's Imam Muhammed bin Saud Islamic University, Business Week, 11/26/2001)
---
Red Herring
>No, you're wrong. In the begining of the 20th century the vast majority of
>people in Palestine were Arabs.
What Arabs?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse
that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. Where Sodom and
Gomorrah reared their domes and towers, that solemn sea now floods the
plain, in whose bitter waters no living thing exists -- over whose waveless
surface the blistering air hangs motionless and dead -- about whose borders
nothing grows but weeds, and scattering tufts of cane, and that treacherous
fruit that promises refreshment to parching lips, but turns to ashes at the
touch. Nazareth is forlorn; about that ford of Jordan where the hosts of
Israel entered the Promised Land with songs of rejoicing, one finds only a
squalid camp of fantastic Bedouins of the desert; Jericho the accursed, lies
a moldering ruin, to-day, even as Joshua's miracle left it more than three
thousand years ago; Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and their
humiliation, have nothing about them now to remind one that they once knew
the high honor of the Saviour's presence; the hallowed spot where the
shepherds watched their flocks by night, and where the angels sang Peace on
earth, good will to men, is untenanted by any living creature, and unblessed
by any feature that is pleasant to the eye. Renowned Jerusalem itself, the
stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become
a pauper village; (Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad)
AC
"In 1948, the United Nations partitioned the western fraction of the
British
Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish state and yet another Arab state. The
Arab
world, instead of rejoicing the creation of a second Arab state in
Palestine,
rejected the partition, desiring all of Palestine for themselves, and
expressing
the intention to murder every single Jew"
In fact the UN had 2 propositions - 1. Partition and 2. Collation Government
comprised of Jews and Arabs
The Jews were for partition because it would give them control of half of
the country and the beginning of their own Zionist state of Israel that they
could by military advantage expand to eventually take control of the whole
place. The Arabs favored the second proposal and were adamantly and rightly
opposed to such a partition that would give the Jews half the land. This
solution was totally in favor of the Jews because the Jews at that time were
only 1/3 of the population and the vast majority of those were immigrants.
The 2 propositions were put to a vote of the UN member nations and on the
day of the vote it was apparent that the collation government proposition
would win. However at the last minute the vote was delayed for a few days
because of the Thanksgiving holiday in USA. In those days the Jewish lobby
used threats and bribes to get some countries to change their votes and
that's how partition was accepted by the UN. And as we know today the Arabs
did not even get to keep control of the half of the country they were
supposed to get under that agreement. It's no wonder we have such a
situation there right now. The Arabs had a right to be afraid as the last 50
years has shown.
I.R.
> Here's one specific example of how the Jews 'PURCHASED' the land from the
> Arabs:
>
> On April 9th 1948 the combined Israeli forces of Lehi, Irgun and Palmach
> attacked the Arab village of Deir Yassin with the goal of looting and
> conquering part of the 'land of their forefathers'.
Nonsense.
This area had Iraqi Irregulars and Regulars deployed.
The fighting was not an "attack", it was part of the overall
conflict that existed throughout Israel.
ir
I.R.
AC
"Poul" <poul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > The Israeli army have performed countless acts of terror against the
> > Palestinians
>
> You are lying. Name one.
>
Yassin epesode
> > including the killing of incoent children. Therefore, the
>
> "Killing" is not a terror. Murdering them is terror - which
> is Palestinian speciality.
>
Great logic! Just call it Killing instead of Murder and it's OK?
> > Israeli government and army are terrorists.
>
> And you are Pope.
No.
AC
I mean going into Arab towns and villages with armored cars, guns and
grenades and blasting out the inhabitants.
Poul
Aaa, you mean arresting terrorists? That's good, more gentle than
american carpet bombing approach.
Poul
> > So you believe the Native Americans(Indians) should start blowing up
> shopping> > centers and killing Americans?
> No, because it happened hundreds of years ago and it would do no good for
> them now.
Only because of that?
Anyway, it doesn't do any good to Palestinians either.
Their only hope was Israeli left, that was on their side before
they started to blow up teenage girls in Tel Aviv discos.
> However, back in the days when the Indians attacked and killed the
> white settlers (including women and childern) I believe they were justified
> then, although unfortunately for them it was a hopeless situation.
brutus
or firebomb them as in waco
AC
This is the justification that the Israelis make and that's what's so sick
about the whole situation. It's to the advantage of the Israelis that the
Arabs fight back becuse that gives them the justification for going in and
driving them out so that the Israelis can take control of their land.
Poul
> "Poul" <poul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > The Israeli army have performed countless acts of terror against the
> > > Palestinians
> > You are lying. Name one.
> I have already described one in great detail in this thread - The Deir
> Yassin epesode
This myth was debunked by Arabs themselves. Try harder next time.
> > > including the killing of incoent children. Therefore, the
> > "Killing" is not a terror. Murdering them is terror - which
> > is Palestinian speciality.
> Great logic! Just call it Killing instead of Murder and it's OK?
Killing as "collateral damage". As long as civilians are not targeted,
it is not a terror.
dlt...@yahoo.com
>Here are 2 FACTS straight out of Encarta encyclopedia (encarta.msn.com) that
>you can't deny:
>During the 1300 years of Muslim rule prior to the fall of the Ottoman
>Empire:
>"The Muslim rulers did not force their religion on the Palestinians
During the 1,300 of Muslim rule, there were no Palestinians.
, and
>more than a century passed before the majority converted to Islam. The
>remaining Christians and Jews were considered "People of the Book." They
>were allowed autonomous control in their communities and guaranteed security
>and freedom of worship. Such tolerance (with few exceptions) was rare in the
>history of religion. Most Palestinians also adopted Arabic and Islamic
>culture."
Xians and Jews lived under the dhimma.
>"In 1880, Arab Palestinians constituted about 95 percent of the total
>population."
In 1880, there were no Palestinians.
>In addition here's another FACT quoted from LonelyPlannet to back up what I
>am saying:
>"Britain opened a consulate in Jerusalem, and in 1839 Sir Moses Montefiore,
>a British Jew, began promoting the idea of a Jewish state.
Bullshit.
>In 1878 the first
>Jewish colony was founded, and before long the first Aliyah, or wave of
>immigrants, had started."
>
>And yes there is truth in what you said that the British were impeeding
>Jewish immigration but that was after immigration hade gone out of control
>and the British realize the disaster they had created.
More bullshit.
Deborah
dlt...@yahoo.com
>...and the neo-natzis deny the Holocost ever happened.
>The facts are undisputible. The Zionists can give them a different spin to
>make themselves not look so bad but even with the best spin what happend
>there and all over Palestine was wrong.
It was Arab researchers at Birzeit who debunked the Deir Yassin myth
in 1989.
>These are the facts as laid down in
>"The fifty years' war : Israel and the Arabs", written by Ahron Bregman and
>Jihan El-Tahri, a Jew and an Arab which makes it uniquely unbiased.
I read it. It's crap.
>It is
>also a BBC and PBS documentary series - hardly Anti-Zionists.
Bullshit.
>The living
>attackers and survivors were interviewed for the series. Even the account
>given by the Jewish attackers is horrific. There is no bias, just FACTS.
The survivors said they were told by Hussein Khalidi of the Arab
Higher Committee to lie. Hazem Nusseibeh of the Arabic-language
Palestine Post said Khalidi instructed him to print AHC propaganda.
Deborah
dlt...@yahoo.com
>
>"Poul" <poul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>The Israeli army have performed countless acts of terror against the
>>>Palestinians
>> You are lying. Name one.
AC says...
>I have already described one in great detail in this thread -
>The Deir Yassin epesode
Which was debunked by Arab researchers from Birzeit in 1989.
Name another of these "countless acts of terror".
Can't do it? How predictable.
Deborah
dlt...@yahoo.com
>>What do you mean "displacing"?
AC says...
>I mean going into Arab towns and villages with armored cars, guns and
>grenades and blasting out the inhabitants.
Name an incident.
Deborah
Poul
> > > > What do you mean "displacing"?
> > > I mean going into Arab towns and villages with armored cars, guns and
> > > grenades and blasting out the inhabitants.
> > Aaa, you mean arresting terrorists? That's good, more gentle than
> > american carpet bombing approach.
> This is the justification that the Israelis make and that's what's so sick
It is the most perfect justification that exists on Earth, much better
than American justification of using carpet bombing and daisy cutters
in Afghanistan.
> about the whole situation. It's to the advantage of the Israelis that the
> Arabs fight back becuse that gives them the justification for going in and
> driving them out so that the Israelis can take control of their land.
This is sick justification of Arab terrorism. You are pathetic.
If Arabs don't want Israelis to go in, they should stop mass murdering
teenage girsl at Tel Aviv discos.
john z
<John.R.M...@itk.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> No one is oppressing these Arab SQUATTERS.
>
>Please refer me to information that confirms this. To confirm your statement
>you would have to define oppression, and confir with everyone that they
>according to this definition are not oppressing the Arab SQUATTERS. I have
>no formal definition of oppression, but I think holding back tax money,
>rolling tanks into villages, destroying orchards, blocking their roads, and
>killing and humiliating some of them might fall under a limited definition
>of oppression.
>
>> If they don't like their lives they can get OFF
>> Israel's land and go back to the countries they
>> came from: Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
>> Jordan, and other Arab countries.
>
>I might be wrong in some of my statements, so please correct me.
>
>As far as I have heard, the West Bank and Gaza belong(ed) to Jordan and
>Egypt, and borders were set when the state of Israel was created in 1948.
The West Bank and Gaza were part of the proposed Palestinian State of the 1947
UN partition plan. During the war, they came under the control of Egypt and
Jordan respectively, the latter more or less in line with secret agreements
between Abdullah, the King of Jordan, and Israel. Together they compose about
half of this 1947 UN "Palestine". Jordan formally annexed the West Bank in
1950; this annexation was only recognized by the UK and Pakistan.
>In
>1967 Israel expanded itself (or occupied new territories) into the West Bank
>and Gaza. This land, I believe, is what most palestinians want back.
Yes. Calling these occupied territories is perfectly reasonable and correct as
they were acquired through military operations, and does not prejudice any claim
that Israel may have to them. A glance at the relevant treaties and laws shows
however that Israel's claims are legally inferior to the Palestinians', as
common sense and ordinary morality too imply.
>So the case is that the palestinians are on land that is officially not
>Israels, so they are already OFF Israels land (as defined by the borders of
>1967). Regardless of whether they don't like their lives, they are off
>Israels land. And since the palestinian state is not yet created, they are
>still in Jordan and Egypt.
No, they're not in Jordan or Egypt, as explained above. Jordan repudiated its
claims to the West bank in 1988. Egypt never claimed Gaza as Egyptian
territory.
Deborah Nyob
>The West Bank and Gaza were part of the proposed Palestinian State of the 1947
>UN partition plan. During the war, they came under the control of Egypt and
>Jordan respectively
That should be amended to read: "they were seized and occupied
by the armies of Jordan and Egypt respectively."
>the latter more or less in line with secret agreements
>between Abdullah, the King of Jordan, and Israel.
Proof?
>Jordan formally annexed the West Bank in 1950; this annexation was
>only recognized by the UK and Pakistan.
It was tacitly acknowledged by all countries, none of whom
protested the annexation.
>Calling these occupied territories is perfectly reasonable and correct as
>they were acquired through military operations, and does not prejudice any claim
>that Israel may have to them. A glance at the relevant treaties and laws shows
> however that Israel's claims are legally inferior to the Palestinians'
What, exactly, are these alleged "relevant treaties and laws"?
Deborah
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Russil Wvong
> IR wrote:
> > AC is clearly an Arab/Muslim Terrorist sympathizer
> > and should be viewed as such from now on.
>
> Just like your views on the Arab-Jew conflict, your views on me are
> completely wrong. I have no allegiances to either side, I am viewing this
> conflict from the outside (I'm from Ireland). I have weighed up the
> evidence on both sides over the years and it is obvious to me that
> the Israelis are the aggressors in this situation.
Israel was attacked by its neighboring states in 1948, who had much
larger military forces; it was about to be attacked in 1967; and it
was attacked again in 1973. It's not obvious to me how you can say
that the Israelis are the aggressors.
You say that the Jews shouldn't have immigrated to Palestine when it
was under British control, during the rise of anti-Semitism and the
Nazis. Where should they have gone instead? And if you don't view
the state of Israel as legitimate, where should the Israelis go?
They're not like the French settlers in Algeria, who always had the
choice of leaving; the Israelis have their backs to the wall, they
have nowhere to go.
I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the Palestinians, who have
definitely suffered the most in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
and are continuing to suffer. But this isn't a simple conflict
between good guys and bad guys, with the Israelis as the bad guys.
I'm afraid I don't see any solution in the near future.
A brief review of the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict, based
primarily on "The Arab World Today", by William Polk:
Palestine had been conquered by the Romans, then the Arabs;
later, it came under Turkish rule. During World War I,
to induce the Arabs to rise up against Turkey, the British
promised to support Arab national independence; at the same
time, to induce the Jews to support the British war effort,
they also promised to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
*And* they signed an agreement with France giving it control
over Syria and Lebanon. (Polk's sardonic title for the chapter
on Palestine is "The Promised Land.")
After the war, Palestine came under British administration. There
was a flood of Jewish immigration to Palestine from Europe as Hitler
and the Nazis came to power, and there was increasing tension and
violence between the Jewish and Arab populations. The UN supported
establishment of a Jewish state, but attempts to partition the
territory between the Jewish and Arab populations failed.
Finally the British gave up and withdrew in 1948, after which war
broke out: Israel declared independence, and the neighboring Arab
states invaded; most of the Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.
Israel won, but no peace agreement was reached.
In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal; Israel, Britain, and
France attacked Egypt, but were forced to withdraw by the US.
In 1967, Egypt occupied the Sinai Peninsula and closed Israel's
access to the Red Sea; Israelis feared that the country was about
to be destroyed. In response, Israel launched the Six-Day War.
To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily, occupying the
Sinai Peninsula, West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. This time
the objective was not to destroy Israel, but to inflict a limited
defeat, forcing the US and USSR to intervene. (By this time,
Israel had nuclear weapons, jointly developed with France. The
reason Egypt risked nuclear war was that it desperately needed to
reverse the Israeli occupation of the Sinai.) Israel won the war
again, but with much more difficulty.
For a detailed discussion of the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, see the New York Review of Books article "The Middle East:
Snakes and Ladders" (May 17, 2001), by Avishai Margalit.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224]
From the article:
If there is one thing that gets on the Palestinians' nerves, it's
the talk about Barak's "generous offer" at Camp David.
Palestinians—-all Palestinians--regard this expression as a deep
contradiction. Just why they do needs explaining.
Palestinians view the Palestine that existed during British rule
between 1918 and 1948 as theirs—-100 percent theirs, from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. They see themselves as
the indigenous population of this region and hence the natural
owners of the entire land of Palestine. Any part of the land that
they yield as part of an agreement is, for them, a huge concession.
Recognizing the State of Israel as defined by its 1967 borders—-the
so-called green line—-and thus yielding some 77 percent of British
mandate Palestine is to them by itself a colossal concession, a
painful historical compromise. By recognizing the Israel within the
green line they give up their claim to redress what they see as the
wrong done to them by the establishment of the State of Israel in
1948. If they accept any deal that recognizes Israel they will have
succeeded at most in redressing the wrong done to them in 1967,
when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Thus to ask them
to compromise further after what they already regard as a huge
compromise is, as they see it, a historical outrage. To call any such
compromise "a generous offer" is to them sheer blasphemy.
The Israeli perception is of course diametrically opposite. And by
"the Israeli perception" I do not refer to the idea of "Greater Israel,"
according to which the entire biblical land of Israel belongs to the
Jews, who are the historical indigenous population that was forced
out of the land but never gave it up. What I mean by the Israeli
perception is something very prosaic and unbiblical. Following the
two wars that were forced on Israel, in 1948 and 1967, Israel
conquered and held on to the entire land from the Mediterranean to
the Jordan River. So the Israelis say that any territory we yield to
Palestinians is, to us, a concession. And if Barak was willing to
offer them almost all of the territories occupied since 1967—an
offer that no previous Israeli leader was willing to entertain, let
alone to make—-it is entirely apt to see this as a generous offer.
I don't think there's any easy answers to this conflict. Arafat's
rejection of Barak's offer, whether justified or not, was a huge blow
to the peace process.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Russil Wvong
> comments is something I would like to hear.
See the book "Terror", by Conor Gearty. Gearty's an academic, but
the book's written for a general audience. Gearty argues for a
restrictive definition of terrorism, requiring all of the following:
- violent subversion
- extreme violence (murder or maiming)
- lack of discrimination in targets
- political intent
- communication to a broader audience
He notes that "terrorism" tends to be used in a much more loose way,
as an insult towards one's political opponents.
I found Gearty's book to be particularly useful for a number of reasons:
1. It puts terrorism in perspective. Terrorism is a tactic used by
the weak; if they were stronger, they'd have an army.
2. It differentiates between terrorism and other forms of violent
subversion (which are common to the history of most countries).
3. It describes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (up to 1991, when
the book was published), including the atrocities on both sides.
4. It describes the terrorist dynamic: once the decision is made
to use terrorist violence, it's extremely difficult (or impossible)
to reverse that decision. Even after their original political goals
have been met, or have become pointless, terrorist groups continue
their violence.
5. It describes the experience of terrorism in Europe and the
tactics used to combat it (effective policing, strengthening
of moderate groups, and isolation of extremist groups).
> I think there should be distinct definitions of war, terrorism and crime,
> and all three should be illegal. War arises because some people believe
> their truth is the only truth, and discussions therefore become difficult.
I'm afraid your statement that war is about beliefs is incorrect.
Usually major wars occur between powers seeking to overturn the
status quo (e.g. France under Napoleon, Germany under Hitler) and those
seeking to maintain the status quo. See "The 20 Years' Crisis 1919-1939:
An Introduction to the Study of International Relations", by E. H. Carr,
and "Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace", by
Hans Morgenthau. Selections from both are available on the web at
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/realism.htm.
Carr and Morgenthau both describe the attempt to outlaw war after
World War I. Carr was writing in 1939, just before World War II
broke out.
Howard Aubrey
dlt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Try the NY Times of December 20, 1947. It tells of the Zionist terror
attack on the Arab
village of Khissas where five women and five children were massacred in
order to 'encourage'
the locals to flee for their lives so that Zionist thugs could take
their land.
As you can now plainly see, the occupation began LONG before any
Palestinian response
happened.
HJA
>
>
>Deborah
>
>
Russil Wvong
> dlt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Name an incident.
>
> Try the NY Times of December 20, 1947. It tells of the Zionist terror
> attack on the Arab village of Khissas where five women and five children
> were massacred in order to 'encourage' the locals to flee for their
> lives so that Zionist thugs could take their land.
>
> As you can now plainly see, the occupation began LONG before any
> Palestinian response happened.
According to Benny Morris, there were atrocities on both sides.
From "Crimes of War", ed. Roy Gutman and David Rieff:
The bloodiest and most atrocity-ridden of these wars was, without
doubt, the 1948 war of independence, which began, from November
1947 to May 1948, as a civil/guerrilla war between Palestine's
thoroughly intermixed Arab and Jewish communities, but ended,
from May 1948 to January 1949, as a conventional war between the
invading Arab States' armies and the newborn State of Israel.
The fact that the Arabs had launched the war--the Palestinian
Arabs in November-December 1947 and the Arab States in May 1948--
and that the war was protracted and extremely costly for the Jews
(who lost six thousand dead, or 1 percent of a total population
of 650,000) only exacerbated anger toward the Arabs and heightened
the propensity to commit atrocities. The willingness to commit
atrocities on both sides was also fed by reports--sometimes
accurate, sometimes fantastic--of atrocities committed by the
other side; retaliation was a frequent motive for Arabs and
Israelis alike.
... overall, the Jewish forces--Haganah, IZL, Lehi (Lohamei Herut
Yisrael, or Freedom Fighters of Israel, or "Stern Gang," as the
British authorities called them), and IDF--committed far more
atrocities in 1948 than did Arab forces, if only because they were
in a far better position to do so.
The Haganah, and subsequently the IDF, overran large Arab-populated
areas--some four hundred villages and towns--whereas Arab forces
conquered or overran fewer than a dozen Jewish settlements in the
course of the war. To this must be added the fact that the civil
war in Palestine, which ended in mid-May 1948, raged in a country
nominally ruled by a British administration. Neither Jews nor Arabs
could legally hold prisoners and, for months, neither had facilities
to hold large numbers, so prisoners were either not taken or were shot.
john z
>"AC" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> IR wrote:
>> > AC is clearly an Arab/Muslim Terrorist sympathizer
>> > and should be viewed as such from now on.
>>
>> Just like your views on the Arab-Jew conflict, your views on me are
>> completely wrong. I have no allegiances to either side, I am viewing this
>> conflict from the outside (I'm from Ireland). I have weighed up the
>> evidence on both sides over the years and it is obvious to me that
>> the Israelis are the aggressors in this situation.
>
>Israel was attacked by its neighboring states in 1948, who had much
>larger military forces; it was about to be attacked in 1967;
From reading many of your posts it is clear that you are a very fairminded
individual, and I doubt you realize how extreme this statement is, not even held
by all ardent supporters of Israel, or most who would label Egypt as the
aggressor. Cf. Begin's famous "Let us be honest with ourselves. We attacked."
speech.
> and it
>was attacked again in 1973. It's not obvious to me how you can say
>that the Israelis are the aggressors.
They clearly were in 1956, 1978 and 1982, along with numerous other relatively
minor occasions. (of course there were other such minor occasions too from the
other sides.)
>You say that the Jews shouldn't have immigrated to Palestine when it
>was under British control, during the rise of anti-Semitism and the
>Nazis. Where should they have gone instead? And if you don't view
>the state of Israel as legitimate, where should the Israelis go?
>They're not like the French settlers in Algeria, who always had the
>choice of leaving; the Israelis have their backs to the wall, they
>have nowhere to go.
>
>I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the Palestinians, who have
>definitely suffered the most in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
>and are continuing to suffer. But this isn't a simple conflict
>between good guys and bad guys, with the Israelis as the bad guys.
Agreed.
>I'm afraid I don't see any solution in the near future.
Agreed, but it's not impossible.
snip
>
> In 1967, Egypt occupied the Sinai Peninsula and closed Israel's
> access to the Red Sea; Israelis feared that the country was about
> to be destroyed.
True, Israelis feared this, not unreasonably, but their government and military
certainly did not. Their estimate was the same as the US governments - a week
long war.
> In response, Israel launched the Six-Day War.
> To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily, occupying the
To nobody's (informed) surprise would be truer.
snip
>I don't think there's any easy answers to this conflict. Arafat's
>rejection of Barak's offer, whether justified or not, was a huge blow
>to the peace process.
Doubtful. He got significantly better offers in the next few months, so he
would have been a fool to accept this one.
john z
wrote:
>"john z" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>The West Bank and Gaza were part of the proposed Palestinian State of the 1947
>>UN partition plan. During the war, they came under the control of Egypt and
>>Jordan respectively
>
>That should be amended to read: "they were seized and occupied
>by the armies of Jordan and Egypt respectively."
Sure, if you want, it's OK with me. I just wanted to use calm euphemistic
language. Would you also say that Israel seized and occupied the other half of
the proposed Palestinian State?
>>the latter more or less in line with secret agreements
>>between Abdullah, the King of Jordan, and Israel.
>
>Proof?
I posted you a primary reference earlier. People write whole books on the
matter. E.g. Avi Shlaim. I've never seen anyone deny that something "secret"
happened, whatever you call it. It's one of the best known things about the
war, and was for a long time before the archives were declassified. viz. the TV
movie where Ingrid Bergman played Golda Meir.
I don't understand what's so interesting about it really. Just politics as
usual, no? States just cutting up pieces of a pie, used to happen an awful lot.
Do you really think it reflects so badly on Israel?
>>Jordan formally annexed the West Bank in 1950; this annexation was
>>only recognized by the UK and Pakistan.
>
>It was tacitly acknowledged by all countries, none of whom
>protested the annexation.
Some Palestinians did, one in particular. It got the Arab countries mad at
Abdullah and they almost kicked him out of the Arab League, called him a cad and
a bounder. Maybe one of 'em did make a formal protest? I dunno.
>>Calling these occupied territories is perfectly reasonable and correct as
>>they were acquired through military operations, and does not prejudice any claim
>>that Israel may have to them. A glance at the relevant treaties and laws shows
>> however that Israel's claims are legally inferior to the Palestinians'
>
>What, exactly, are these alleged "relevant treaties and laws"?
UN GA 181(II) and the Lausanne Protocol for two.
>Deborah
Deborah Nyob
>>by the armies of Jordan and Egypt respectively."
>language.
Let me know if anyone believes that, so I can offer them
low-cost shares in a certain bridge.
>Would you also say that Israel seized and occupied the other
>half of the proposed Palestinian State?
No - because Israel did not. Arabs seized the land allocated
to the proposed Arab state in Palestine to prevent creation
of that state.
>>>the latter more or less in line with secret agreements
>>>between Abdullah, the King of Jordan, and Israel.
>>Proof?
>I posted you a primary reference earlier. People write whole books
>on the matter. E.g. Avi Shlaim.
Shlaim is a revisionist whose bias is so evident that his (mis)
interpretations of the facts should be categorized as fiction.
He dwells with loving detail on Israeli "attrocities" against
peaceful, peace-loving Arabs, leaving out what the Arabs did to
prompt these actions, along with the Arab states public avowals
to destroy Israel and their support of terrorism. Arab leaders
are all nice guys with good intention, whereas Israeli leaders
are all lying, cheating, double-dealing Evil Joooos, except for
most Labour leaders (B-G not included), who were all inspired by
Marxist ideals. (Huh?) Shlaim also doesn't fail to trot out that
dessicated old bullshit that Britain "created" Israel for its own
nefarious purposes and aided Jewish immigration - whereas, in the
real world, the Brits shut down ALL Jewish immigration several
times, most notably in 1939 - when Jews were desperate to get out
of Nazi Germany - and again at the end 1945, when the Brits began
interning the survivors of Hitler's death camps in concentration
camps.
>I've never seen anyone deny that something "secret" happened,
>whatever you call it. It's one of the best known things about
>the war, and was for a long time before the archives were
>declassified. viz. the TV movie where Ingrid Bergman played
>Golda Meir.
SUCH a source.
I've seen several accounts of "what really happened". The only
certainties are that actually aiding the Palestinian Arabs was
a very low priority for the invading Arab states, and that
the king of Transjordan was adamantly opposed to the creation
of a Husseini-dominated Arab state on his borders.
>I don't understand what's so interesting about it really.
So why do you bother?
>Just politics as usual, no? States just cutting up pieces of a
>pie, used to happen an awful lot. Do you really think it reflects
>so badly on Israel?
The facts do not generally reflect badly on Israel, but the
bullshit does.
>>>Jordan formally annexed the West Bank in 1950; this annexation was
>>>only recognized by the UK and Pakistan.
>>It was tacitly acknowledged by all countries, none of whom
>>protested the annexation.
>Some Palestinians did, one in particular.
What was his name, and was he a Palestinian Jew or a
Palestinian Arab?
>It got the Arab countries mad at Abdullah and they almost kicked
>him out of the Arab League, called him a cad and a bounder.
It got him assassinated by Husseini terrorists.
>Maybe one of 'em did make a formal protest? I dunno.
>>>Calling these occupied territories is perfectly reasonable and correct as
>>>they were acquired through military operations, and does not prejudice any claim
>>>that Israel may have to them. A glance at the relevant treaties and laws shows
>>>however that Israel's claims are legally inferior to the Palestinians'
>>What, exactly, are these alleged "relevant treaties and laws"?
>UN GA 181(II) and the Lausanne Protocol for two.
You seem not to have read the Lausanne Protocol of 12 May 1949.
And in case you haven't kept up on current event, the Arabs
rejected 181.
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
> >Israel was attacked by its neighboring states in 1948, who had much
> >larger military forces; it was about to be attacked in 1967;
>
> From reading many of your posts it is clear that you are a very fairminded
> individual,
Thank you.
> and I doubt you realize how extreme this statement is, not
> even held by all ardent supporters of Israel, or most who would label
> Egypt as the aggressor. Cf. Begin's famous "Let us be honest with
> ourselves. We attacked." speech.
Is it so extreme? (Obviously this is an important issue because
this is when Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.)
My main sources of information are William Polk's "The Arab World
Today", Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", and Avishai Margalit's
articles in the New York Review of Books. I don't think any of them
could be described as extreme. For example, Morris wrote the
article in "Crimes of War" describing Israeli atrocities during the
war of independence. Certainly Israel launched a preemptive attack,
but Polk and Morris both make it clear that even if Nasser's initial
deployment of troops in the Sinai wasn't intended to lead to war,
the momentum of the crisis led to a great deal of public pressure
on Nasser to attack. (I hope the same dynamic isn't at work in
Kashmir today.)
Here's Begin's speech, where he attempts to defend the Israeli
invasion of Lebanon by comparing it to Israeli's preemptive attack
in the 1967 war:
In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations
in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to
attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term.
The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously:
we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and
thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
[http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm]
Here's what Morris has to say in "Righteous Victims":
The IDF's initial assessment [of Egypt's deployment of 100,000
troops in the Sinai] was that Nasser was merely flexing his
muscles to deter a strike against Syria; he had been affected,
if not actually driven, by the stinging Arab criticism of his
inaction after the Samu' raid and the dogfight over Damascus.
But on May 16-18 Egypt abruptly turned ostentatious display into
deep political-military crisis, by demanding the evacuation of
the 3,400 UNEF troops from Sinai and Gaza.
And Secretary-General U Thant unquestioningly accepted Cairo's
right to demand the withdrawal: On May 20-21, UNEF withdrew from
Sharm ash-Sheikh, and Egyptian troops immediately occupied the
site. The UN's compliant response certainly surprised the Israelis.
It may also have taken Nasser aback: He may have hoped that the
matter would be referred to the Security Council or General
Assembly, where it would be turned down--leaving his forces in Sinai,
having challenged Israel, but with a UN buffer still firmly in place.
With the news of U Thant's agreement to the withdrawal, IDF
intelligence began changing its tune. Its assessment on May 17
stated: "If the UN forces withdraw ... a new situation could
arise, which would give the Egyptian [deployment] an offensive ...
character." Yet the overall Israeli estimate on May 18 remained
that war was still "a remote possibility."
At this point Nasser appears to have submitted to the momentum of
his (or 'Amr's) previous actions. He may have thought that he was
on the verge of a major, cost-free political victory. Having moved
six divisions into Sinai and returned at least two brigades from
Yemen, on May 21 he declared a general mobilization of the Egyptian
army. He appears to have believed--perhaps persuaded by 'Amr--that
his army could defeat or at least hold off the IDF; perhaps the war
fever of the Cairo crowds, reproduced in a dozen Arab capitals,
got the better of his judgment.
Israeli intelligence still believed that Nasser would halt at the
brink, and on the morning of May 22 thought it "unlikely" that he
would announce the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli
shipping. But around noon the same day, Nasser visited the Bir
Gafgafa air base in Sinai and declared that Egypt was about to do
just that, re-creating the situation that Israel had always
regarded as a *casus belli*. 'Amr instructed his units to bar the
Gulf of Eilat, from noon on May 23, to all vessels flying the
Israeli flag and to all oil tankers bound for Eilat. That night,
just after midnight, the formal announcement was made.
In retrospect this can be seen as the decisive act that made war
inevitable--though Nasser apparently did not realize it. He was
subsequently to imply--as during his speech of May 26 to Arab
trade union leaders--that the whole sequence of moves, culminating
in the closure of the straits, had been planned to trigger war with
Israel, with the ultimate aim of "liberating Palestine." Not the
Straits of Tiran but Israel's "existence" was the issue, he said
on May 29. Clearly the situation had changed dramatically. ...
The week of growing tension had another--at the time secret--effect:
[Yitzhak] Rabin [chief of the IDF general staff at the time]
suffered what amounted to a nervous breakdown, which he later
described as "nicotine poisoning" or "a state of mental and
physical exhaustion," incapacitating him for forty-eight hours
during May 22-24. The collapse may have been triggered by a
meeting on May 22 with the retired elder statesman Ben-Gurion,
who told Rabin that his "mistaken" mobilization of reserves had
made the crisis acute and that he was responsible for "leading
the nation into a grave situation," isolated and with war a
fearful possibility.
... With mobilization in Israel, the economy slowed down. The
generals feared that the Arabs were using the time to improve
their defenses, but Eshkol insisted on delay. Morale began to
slump. Empty lots were consecreated as makeshift cemeteries;
tens of thousands were expected to die. There was a widespread
feeling among the civilian population--though not in the army--that
a "Second Holocaust" was a definite possibility. Newspapers
explicitly likened Nasser to Hitler: *HaAretz*, the leading daily,
even ran Nasser's declaration of May 26: "If Israel wants war--well
then, Israel will be destroyed!" alongside Hitler's of January 30,
1939: "If the Jews drag the world into war--world Jewry will be
destroyed." A low point came on the evening of May 28, when the
prime minister broadcast a rather hesitant, faltering speech to the
nation; later designated the "stammering speech," it projected fear
and irresolution.
... On May 30, King Hussein flew to Cario and signed a mutual
defense pact with President Nasser. An Egyptian general, 'Abd
al-Mun'im Riad, was appointed, at least on paper, overall
commander of Jordan's army. On June 3 two Egyptian commando
battalions were flown to Jordan, and on the following morning
an Iraqi mechanized brigade crossed into Jordan and began to move
toward the Jordan River. Egypt and Iraq, traditional enemies,
also signed a mutual defense pact. The crisis had precipitated
what appeared to be that ancient, coveted will-o'-the-wisp,
Arab unity. The Arab world was rallying around its new leader,
Nasser. Even the long-standing enmity between Hussein and PLO
Chairman Ahmen Shukeiry seemed to dissipate as the latter visited
Amman.
The masses, meanwhile, had been whipped up by politicians and the
media into a state of war hysteria and exultation. In Israel,
which could not but be influenced by the hourly radio reports of
Arab war frenzy and announcements of Israel's impending demise,
there was a feeling of a noose tightening around the nation's
neck--especially among Holocaust survivors. Damascus Radio told
its listeners on May 23: "Arab masses, this is your day. Rush to
the battlefield.... Let them know that we shall hang the last
imperialist soldier with the entrails of the last Zionist." The
director of the Voice of the Arabs (Cairo), Ahmed Said, chimed in:
"The Zionist barracks in Palestine is about to collapse and be
destroyed.... Every ... Arab has been living for the past 19
years on one hope--... to see the day Israel is liquidated."
The prime minister of Iraq spoke of a "rendezvous with our brothers
in Tel Aviv," and Shukeiry declared: "[There] will be practically
no Jewish survivors."
> > In 1967, Egypt occupied the Sinai Peninsula and closed Israel's
> > access to the Red Sea; Israelis feared that the country was about
> > to be destroyed.
>
> True, Israelis feared this, not unreasonably, but their government
> and military certainly did not. Their estimate was the same as the
> US governments - a week long war.
As Morris notes above, Yitzhak Rabin, the chief of the IDF general
staff had a nervous breakdown, and Levi Eshkol, the prime minister,
was hesitant to launch the war. The Israeli leadership may have
believed that they could win the war quickly, as they did, but they
were certainly afraid. Regarding the military, Morris again:
The Egyptian, Syrian, or Jordanian soldier may have been filled
with hatred, or at least animosity, toward the usurping Israeli--
but he failed to regard the battle with Israel as a war for very
survival. The Israeli believed he was fighting for his life,
his family, and his home. Beyond that, there was a mortal fear
for the very existence of the national collective. A Herut Party
Knesset member, Arye Ben-Eliezer, said after the war: "We were
not so few in number as there is a tendency to believe. By our
side fought the six million, who whispered in our ear the
eleventh commandment: Do not get murdered...."
> > In response, Israel launched the Six-Day War.
> > To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily, occupying the
>
> To nobody's (informed) surprise would be truer.
From reading Morris, my impression is that most Israelis and Arabs
were certainly surprised. Even among the Israeli leadership, Morris
writes that Israel had anticipated heavy losses. In fact, they
were relatively light: 338 dead in Sinai, 300 dead on the Jordanian
front, 141 dead on the Golan Heights.
> >was attacked again in 1973. It's not obvious to me how you can say
> >that the Israelis are the aggressors.
>
> They clearly were in 1956, 1978 and 1982, along with numerous other
> relatively minor occasions. (of course there were other such minor
> occasions too from the other sides.)
Fair enough.
> >I don't think there's any easy answers to this conflict. Arafat's
> >rejection of Barak's offer, whether justified or not, was a huge blow
> >to the peace process.
>
> Doubtful. He got significantly better offers in the next few months, so
> he would have been a fool to accept this one.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to Barak's initial bargaining position, but to
Clinton's proposals, which Barak accepted and Arafat rejected. Margalit:
With regard to Barak's initial bargaining position, all this may or
may not be true. But even if it is true, and Barak is not the
generous person his propaganda would have us believe that he is,
it is irrelevant. What is relevant are Clinton's proposals to
"bridge" the differences between the two sides; and these蓉nlike
Barak's proposals, generous or otherwise預re all in the open.
And whatever else Barak had in mind, at least we know that he said
"yes" to Clinton's proposals; a complicated yes, but a yes
nevertheless. As for Arafat, his answer to Clinton's proposals was
a thirty-five-page document full of reservations. However sensible
these reservations were, his answer was "no."
What was the gist of Clinton's proposals? A Palestinian state is to
be established on some 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and all of
the Gaza Strip. Eighty percent of the Israeli settlers currently
living in the West Bank will be concentrated in settlements placed
within the 4 to 6 percent of the land that Israel wishes to annex,
on condition that these settlements do not destroy the territorial
continuity of the Palestinian state.
For the territories that Israel will annex, Israel will have to
compensate the Palestinian state by giving up between 1 and 3 percent
of its own territory elsewhere. As for Jerusalem, neighborhoods where
Arabs live will belong to the Palestinian state, and neighborhoods
where Jews live will belong to Israel. This arrangement is to apply
to the Old City as well. The Haram al-Sharif will be under Palestinian
sovereignty, while the Wailing Wall as well as other places that are
holy to the Jews will be under Israeli sovereignty. The final agreement
will state clearly that it brings to an end the Israeli鳳alestinian
conflict and that no further claims will be recognized.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14224]
In the end, Barak was defeated by Ariel Sharon in the next election.
And I don't see how any deal can be reached between Sharon and Arafat.
Deborah Nyob
> > >Israel was attacked by its neighboring states in 1948, who had much
> > >larger military forces; it was about to be attacked in 1967;
> > From reading many of your posts it is clear that you are a very fairminded
> > individual,
>
> Thank you.
>
>> and I doubt you realize how extreme this statement is, not
> > even held by all ardent supporters of Israel, or most who would label
> > Egypt as the aggressor. Cf. Begin's famous "Let us be honest with
> > ourselves. We attacked." speech.
I see john z has not been taking his anti-hallucinogens again.
> Is it so extreme?
Not at all. It is fact.
(Obviously this is an important issue because
> this is when Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.)
> My main sources of information are William Polk's "The Arab World
> Today", Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", and Avishai Margalit's
> articles in the New York Review of Books. I don't think any of them
> could be described as extreme.
Polk is an Arabist and Morris is a revisionist. Neither
are to be relied upon.
See instead Conor Cruise O'Brien's The Siege.
>Certainly Israel launched a preemptive attack,
>but Polk and Morris both make it clear that even if Nasser's initial
>deployment of troops in the Sinai wasn't intended to lead to war,
That was not at all clear at the time, especially as Nasser's
speeches indicated otherwise.
>the momentum of the crisis led to a great deal of public pressure
>on Nasser to attack.
Nasser's blockade of the Straits of Tiran was a clear act of war.
>[http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm]
The Washington Report is a pro-Pallie propaganda site, not
to be taken without a very large dose of salt - particularly
as its "recommended reading" list includes fantasists such as
Michael Palumbo and John Quigley.
> Here's what Morris has to say in "Righteous Victims":
Morris takes very light view about the blockade of the Straits,
which threatened Israel's shipping. He writes misleadingly that
Israel considered it a casus belli and fails to mention that so
would any other state.
>As Morris notes above, Yitzhak Rabin, the chief of the IDF general
>staff had a nervous breakdown
Morris indicates only that Rabin's 48-hour collapse on 23rd May
may have "amounted to" a nervous breakdown.
>Levi Eshkol, the prime minister, was hesitant to launch the war.
When Rabin collapsed, it was not at all certain there would be
any war.
>The Israeli leadership may have believed that they could win the
>war quickly, as they did, but they were certainly afraid.
No, they believed they had no alternative but to win any war
quickly. That they were alarmed is certainly true.
>>>In response, Israel launched the Six-Day War.
>>>To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily, occupying the
>>To nobody's (informed) surprise would be truer.
>From reading Morris, my impression is that most Israelis and Arabs
>were certainly surprised.
So was everybody else. Go look up some articles from the time.
>>They clearly were in 1956, 1978 and 1982, along with numerous other
>>relatively minor occasions. (of course there were other such minor
>>occasions too from the other sides.)
> Fair enough.
No, it isn't. Not without any evidence whatsoever of these alleged
"numerous other relatively minor occasions".
Thank you, Russil Wvong, for backing your statements with sources.
Tora Bora
occupied Palestine. When they get there, all of them, we will see what
a peace is waiting for them. How stupid they think they (6 million)
can live within more than 1.4 BILLION Muslims people. Islamic nation
is sleeping now but it's never died !! What a black and horrific
future for jews. If we didn't see that, Our children will do. Did we
learn from the history?
http://www.mideastfacts.com/
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/index.html
john z
>john z <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>> >Israel was attacked by its neighboring states in 1948, who had much
>> >larger military forces; it was about to be attacked in 1967;
>>
>> From reading many of your posts it is clear that you are a very fairminded
>> individual,
>
>Thank you.
>
>> and I doubt you realize how extreme this statement is, not
>> even held by all ardent supporters of Israel, or most who would label
>> Egypt as the aggressor. Cf. Begin's famous "Let us be honest with
>> ourselves. We attacked." speech.
>
>Is it so extreme? (Obviously this is an important issue because
>this is when Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.)
>My main sources of information are William Polk's "The Arab World
>Today", Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", and Avishai Margalit's
>articles in the New York Review of Books. I don't think any of them
>could be described as extreme.
Yes, but your statement is not at all supported by them.
You said Israel was about to be attacked. Perhaps you don't realize this *is*
an extreme view, unlike the standard accounts you posted?
snip
>
>> > In response, Israel launched the Six-Day War.
>> > To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily, occupying the
>>
>> To nobody's (informed) surprise would be truer.
>
>From reading Morris, my impression is that most Israelis and Arabs
>were certainly surprised. Even among the Israeli leadership, Morris
>writes that Israel had anticipated heavy losses. In fact, they
>were relatively light: 338 dead in Sinai, 300 dead on the Jordanian
>front, 141 dead on the Golan Heights.
Nobody in the American or Israeli military or intelligence services was at all
surprised. The general populace was different.
snip
john z
wrote:
>>>That should be amended to read: "they were seized and occupied
>>>by the armies of Jordan and Egypt respectively."
>
>"john z" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote
>>Sure, if you want, it's OK with me. I just wanted to use calm euphemistic
>>language.
>
>Let me know if anyone believes that, so I can offer them
>low-cost shares in a certain bridge.
Except for a desire to perhaps say something negative about me, this is
incomprehensible. Do you think I was trying to use inflammatory language?
>>Would you also say that Israel seized and occupied the other
>>half of the proposed Palestinian State?
>
>No - because Israel did not.
Then what did Israel do to these lands? They don't exist?
You'd better tell the Israelis that live there.
>Arabs seized the land allocated
>to the proposed Arab state in Palestine to prevent creation
>of that state.
"Arabs" is kind of a weird word here. "Jordan" would be better.
>>>>the latter more or less in line with secret agreements
>>>>between Abdullah, the King of Jordan, and Israel.
>
>>>Proof?
>
>>I posted you a primary reference earlier. People write whole books
>>on the matter. E.g. Avi Shlaim.
>
>Shlaim is a revisionist whose bias is so evident that his (mis)
>interpretations of the facts should be categorized as fiction.
>He dwells with loving detail on Israeli "attrocities" against
>peaceful, peace-loving Arabs, leaving out what the Arabs did to
>prompt these actions, along with the Arab states public avowals
>to destroy Israel and their support of terrorism. Arab leaders
>are all nice guys with good intention, whereas Israeli leaders
>are all lying, cheating, double-dealing Evil Joooos, except for
>most Labour leaders (B-G not included), who were all inspired by
>Marxist ideals. (Huh?) Shlaim also doesn't fail to trot out that
>dessicated old bullshit that Britain "created" Israel for its own
>nefarious purposes and aided Jewish immigration - whereas, in the
>real world, the Brits shut down ALL Jewish immigration several
>times, most notably in 1939 - when Jews were desperate to get out
>of Nazi Germany - and again at the end 1945, when the Brits began
>interning the survivors of Hitler's death camps in concentration
>camps.
Well, think what you want. Your summary is silly and inaccurate on what I have
read of Shlaim.
>>I've never seen anyone deny that something "secret" happened,
>>whatever you call it. It's one of the best known things about
>>the war, and was for a long time before the archives were
>>declassified. viz. the TV movie where Ingrid Bergman played
>>Golda Meir.
>
>SUCH a source.
My point is just that your apparent desire to debate the existence of
something well known enough to have been in a TV movie, to which I have already
given an Israeli state archive source, and which has been a topic of many books
is astonishing.
>I've seen several accounts of "what really happened". The only
>certainties are that actually aiding the Palestinian Arabs was
>a very low priority for the invading Arab states, and that
>the king of Transjordan was adamantly opposed to the creation
>of a Husseini-dominated Arab state on his borders.
(I purposely phrased what I wrote to cover practically any interpretation of
what everyone agrees on.) Other certainties involve secret discussions between
two supposedly opposed parties just before the crucial dates, and the fact that
what happened on the ground accorded with the well-supported idea that there was
some kind of understanding - e.g. Ben-Gurion calling off a campaign to get the
West Bank at one point.
>>I don't understand what's so interesting about it really.
>
>So why do you bother?
I'm answering you. Why do you ask me for sources that I have already provided?
What is your take on what happened? That there was no rough agreement, no
meetings, no idea on each side that the other might not be a total enemy?
You are hard to understand.
>
>>Just politics as usual, no? States just cutting up pieces of a
>>pie, used to happen an awful lot. Do you really think it reflects
>>so badly on Israel?
>
>The facts do not generally reflect badly on Israel, but the
>bullshit does.
Why do you think the "bullshit" reflects particularly badly on Israel?
(If I understand your views as to what is bullshit and what is fact.)
I find it amazing that any adult could think so, or think that any state that
has ever existed always acted with such nobility that such actions could have
besmirched its escutcheon, to use appropriately ridiculous words.
>>>>Jordan formally annexed the West Bank in 1950; this annexation was
>>>>only recognized by the UK and Pakistan.
>
>>>It was tacitly acknowledged by all countries, none of whom
>>>protested the annexation.
>
>>Some Palestinians did, one in particular.
>
>What was his name, and was he a Palestinian Jew or a
>Palestinian Arab?
You answer your own question below.
>>It got the Arab countries mad at Abdullah and they almost kicked
>>him out of the Arab League, called him a cad and a bounder.
>
>It got him assassinated by Husseini terrorists.
>
>>Maybe one of 'em did make a formal protest? I dunno.
>
>>>>Calling these occupied territories is perfectly reasonable and correct as
>>>>they were acquired through military operations, and does not prejudice any claim
>>>>that Israel may have to them. A glance at the relevant treaties and laws shows
>>>>however that Israel's claims are legally inferior to the Palestinians'
>
>>>What, exactly, are these alleged "relevant treaties and laws"?
>
>>UN GA 181(II) and the Lausanne Protocol for two.
>
>You seem not to have read the Lausanne Protocol of 12 May 1949.
>And in case you haven't kept up on current event, the Arabs
>rejected 181.
Have you read it?
In it all the parties - the Arab states and Israel, at a conference with
significant Palestinian representation (purport to, neither side really meant
it) agree to use the 181 map as a basis for negotiation. It essentially made
181 into somewhat solid international law.
One can find a lot more that supports the Palestinian claim over the close to
nonexistent Israeli one. Why don't you take a look at a PLO website?
:-)
Deborah Nyob
>I think Muslims waiting for all jews to get all together there in the
>occupied Palestine.
Which "Palestine"? Israel or Jordan?
>When they get there, all of them, we will see what a peace is
>waiting for them. How stupid they think they (6 million)
>can live within more than 1.4 BILLION Muslims people.
So much for Islamic "peacefulness".
>Islamic nation is sleeping now but it's never died !!
Probably because "Islamic nation" was never born.
>What a black and horrific future for jews. If we didn't see
>that, Our children will do. Did we learn from the history?
Obviously not.
This moron provides an insight into why Islam is the world's
fastest-growing religion: it requires no thought.
Deborah Nyob
>>>half of the proposed Palestinian State?
>>"john z" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote
>>No - because Israel did not.
"john z" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Then what did Israel do to these lands? They don't exist?
>You'd better tell the Israelis that live there.
Israel seized and occupied the "West Bank" of the Kingdom
of Jordan and the Gaza Strip, which Egypt had controlled
for 19 years.
>>Arabs seized the land allocated
>>to the proposed Arab state in Palestine to prevent creation
>>of that state.
>"Arabs" is kind of a weird word here. "Jordan" would be better.
Jordanians are not Arabs? That's news to them.
>>Shlaim is a revisionist whose bias is so evident that his (mis)
>>interpretations of the facts should be categorized as fiction.
>>He dwells with loving detail on Israeli "attrocities" against
>>peaceful, peace-loving Arabs, leaving out what the Arabs did to
>>prompt these actions, along with the Arab states public avowals
>>to destroy Israel and their support of terrorism. Arab leaders
>>are all nice guys with good intention, whereas Israeli leaders
>>are all lying, cheating, double-dealing Evil Joooos, except for
>>most Labour leaders (B-G not included), who were all inspired by
>>Marxist ideals. (Huh?) Shlaim also doesn't fail to trot out that
>>dessicated old bullshit that Britain "created" Israel for its own
>>nefarious purposes and aided Jewish immigration - whereas, in the
>>real world, the Brits shut down ALL Jewish immigration several
>>times, most notably in 1939 - when Jews were desperate to get out
>>of Nazi Germany - and again at the end 1945, when the Brits began
>>interning the survivors of Hitler's death camps in concentration
>>camps.
>Well, think what you want. Your summary is silly and inaccurate
>on what I have read of Shlaim.
What you have "read OF Shlaim"? You haven't actually READ Shlaim
for yourself?
Had you actually read Oxford professor Shlaim's silly "Iron Wall",
you would know I know whereof I speak.
>>>viz. the TV movie where Ingrid Bergman played
>>>Golda Meir.
>>SUCH a source.
>My point is just that your apparent desire to debate the existence
>of something well known enough to have been in a TV movie, to which
>I have already given an Israeli state archive source,
Your alleged "sources" have zero credibility.
>>I've seen several accounts of "what really happened". The only
>>certainties are that actually aiding the Palestinian Arabs was
>>a very low priority for the invading Arab states, and that
>>the king of Transjordan was adamantly opposed to the creation
>>of a Husseini-dominated Arab state on his borders.
>(I purposely phrased what I wrote to cover practically any
>interpretation of what everyone agrees on.)
IOW, you posted another load of bullshit.
>Other certainties involve secret discussions between two supposedly
>opposed parties just before the crucial dates,
Specify "crucial dates".
>and the fact that what happened on the ground accorded with the
>well-supported idea
Supported by whom?
>that there was some kind of understanding - e.g. Ben-Gurion calling
>off a campaign to get the West Bank at one point.
When did this so-called "campaign to get the West Bank" take place,
and who commanded it?
BTW, There were, in fact, at least two discussions between King
Abdullah, Eliyahu Sasson, and Golda. The accounts given were Golda's.
>Why do you ask me for sources that I have already provided?
See above. Your "sources" are what you have read ABOUT Avi Shlaim's
Iron Wall and a TV movie about Golda.
>What is your take on what happened? That there was no rough agreement,
>no meetings, no idea on each side that the other might not be a total
>enemy?
Golda reported after the second meeting that Abdullah told them he
was only one amongst many, and could not stand against his brother
Arabs.
>You are hard to understand.
Do you have trouble with facts?
>>The facts do not generally reflect badly on Israel, but the
>>bullshit does.
>Why do you think the "bullshit" reflects particularly badly on Israel?
>(If I understand your views as to what is bullshit and what is fact.)
Apparently you are experiencing some trouble with facts.
>I find it amazing that any adult could think so, or think that any
>state that has ever existed always acted with such nobility that
>such actions could have besmirched its escutcheon, to use appropriately
>ridiculous words.
All governments are inherently evil. The difference is a matter
of degree.
>>>>It was tacitly acknowledged by all countries, none of whom
>>>>protested the annexation.
>>>Some Palestinians did, one in particular.
>>What was his name, and was he a Palestinian Jew or a
>>Palestinian Arab?
>You answer your own question below.
You do not. Why is that? You can't back your own claim?
Point out to me WHO were "some Palestinians" who protested
Jordan's annexation of the territories allocated to the
proposed Arab state, and the name of the "one in particular".
>>>It got the Arab countries mad at Abdullah and they almost kicked
>>>him out of the Arab League, called him a cad and a bounder.
>>It got him assassinated by Husseini terrorists.
>>>Maybe one of 'em did make a formal protest? I dunno.
You claimed above "some Palestinians, one in particular"
protested the Jordanian annexation. Name them.
>>>>What, exactly, are these alleged "relevant treaties and laws"?
>>>UN GA 181(II) and the Lausanne Protocol for two.
>>You seem not to have read the Lausanne Protocol of 12 May 1949.
>>And in case you haven't kept up on current event, the Arabs
>>rejected 181.
>http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0aad6036b6377e6d0525672e0058609e/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,A%2F927
>Have you read it?
I have read it and posted it several times. You seem not to
be able to comprehend the simple fact that THE LEAGUE OF ARAB
STATES REJECTED UNGAR 181.
>In it all the parties - the Arab states and Israel, at a conference
>with significant Palestinian representation (purport to, neither side
>really meant it)
Significant Pallie representation, huh.
==========================================
An Elusive Peace
By Dr. Hazem Nusseibeh
[who seems to have continued his illustrious
career of publishing fictions]
On May 12, 1949, after intensive talks between leaders of the four
Arab States directly concerned-- Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon
on the one hand and, Israel on the other, along with credible
Palestinian participation, personages like Ahmad Shukairy, Farid
El-Sa’d, ‘Aziz Shihadeh, Kholousi Khairi and others-- the Arab and
Israeli sides signed the Lausanne Protocol stating that the signatories
were ready to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan as the basis and
framework for a territorial solution of the Palestine Problem as well
as other provisions relating thereof, including internationalization
of Jerusalem and a prompt return of the refugees.
But as soon as Israel had obtained membership to the United Nations, Israel
reneged on its undertaking and refused to make any meaningful concessions
for peace.
The United States was so upset by Israel’s truculence that it threatened
to reconsider her attitude towards Israel but, to no avail. Israel seemed
determined to exploit to the full its military successes and fait accomplis.
Israel and Jordan who had been in control of the two sectors of Jerusalem
also opposed internationalization.
==========================================
The protocol below would seem to give the lie to "Dr"
Nusseibeh's little fiction. In the protocol, as in UNGAR
191, the word "refugees" is never qualified.
>agree to use the 181 map as a basis for negotiation.
>It essentially made 181 into somewhat solid international law.
Really?
RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION
AND THE DELEGATION OF ISRAEL
held at Lausanne on 12 May 1949 at 10.30 a.m.
Present
Mr. de Boisanger (Chairman) - France
Mr. Yalcin - Turkey
Mr. Ethridge - United States of America
Mr. Azcarate (Principal Secretary)
Dr. Walter Eytan - Israel
In the course of this meeting the following Protocol was signed by the
delegate of Israel, on the one hand, and the members of the Conciliation
Commission on the other:
PROTOCOL
The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to
achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for
their rights and preservation of their property, as well as territorial
and other questions, has proposed to the delegation of Israel and to the
delegations of the Arab States that the working document attached hereto
be taken as a basis for discussions with the Commission.
The interested delegations have accepted this proposal with the understanding
that the exchanges of views which will be carried on by the Commission with
the two parties will bear upon the territorial adjustments necessary to the
above-indicated objectives.
Lausanne, 12 May 1949
(Signed)
Walter Eytan (Israel)
Cahid Yalcin (Turkey)
Claude de Boisanger (France)
Chairman Mark Ethridge(United States of America)
RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION
AND THE DELEGATIONS OF EGYPT, JORDAN, LEBANON AND SYRIA
held at Lausanne on 12 May 1949 at 11.30 a.m.
Present
Mr. de Boisanger (Chairman) - France
Mr. Yalcin - Turkey
Mr. Ethridge - United States of America
Mr. Azcarate (Principal Secretary)
H.E. Abdel Monem Mostafa - Egypt
H.E. Fauzi Pasha Mulki - Jordan
H.E. Fouad Bey Ammoun - Lebanon
H.E. Adnan Atassi - Syria
In the course of this meeting the following Protocol was signed by the
delegates of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, on the one hand, and the
members of the Conciliation Commission on the other:
PROTOCOL
The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, anxious to
achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution of 11 December 1948, regarding refugees, the respect for
their rights and preservation of their property, as well as territorial
and other questions, has proposed to the delegation of Israel and to the
delegations of the Arab States that the working document attached hereto
be taken as a basis for discussions with the Commission.
The interested delegations have accepted this proposal with the understanding
that the exchanges of views which will be carried on by the Commission with
the two parties will bear upon the territorial adjustments necessary to the
above-indicated objectives.
Lausanne, 12 May 1949
(Signed)
Money Mostafa (Egypt)
Fauzi Mulki (Jordan)
F. Ammoun (Lebanon)
Adnan Atassi (Syria)
Claude de Boisanger (France)
- Chairman Cahid Yalcin(Turkey)
Mark Ethridge (UnitedStates of America)
>One can find a lot more that supports the Palestinian claim over
>the close to nonexistent Israeli one. Why don't you take a look
>at a PLO website?
I have. It's amusing, but hardly in the class of "Best
of Fantasy and SF".
john z
wrote:
>>>>Would you also say that Israel seized and occupied the other
>>>>half of the proposed Palestinian State?
>
>>>"john z" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote
>>>No - because Israel did not.
>
>"john z" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Then what did Israel do to these lands? They don't exist?
>>You'd better tell the Israelis that live there.
>
>Israel seized and occupied the "West Bank" of the Kingdom
>of Jordan and the Gaza Strip, which Egypt had controlled
>for 19 years.
Obviously, that's not what I was talking about.
I was perfectly clear; why don't you address what I did talk about?
>>>Arabs seized the land allocated
>>>to the proposed Arab state in Palestine to prevent creation
>>>of that state.
>
>>"Arabs" is kind of a weird word here. "Jordan" would be better.
>
>Jordanians are not Arabs? That's news to them.
Your statement sort of made it sound like the population of these territories
seized their own land to prevent the creation of a state there.
>>>Shlaim is a revisionist whose bias is so evident that his (mis)
>>>interpretations of the facts should be categorized as fiction.
>>>He dwells with loving detail on Israeli "attrocities" against
>>>peaceful, peace-loving Arabs, leaving out what the Arabs did to
>>>prompt these actions, along with the Arab states public avowals
>>>to destroy Israel and their support of terrorism. Arab leaders
>>>are all nice guys with good intention, whereas Israeli leaders
>>>are all lying, cheating, double-dealing Evil Joooos, except for
>>>most Labour leaders (B-G not included), who were all inspired by
>>>Marxist ideals. (Huh?) Shlaim also doesn't fail to trot out that
>>>dessicated old bullshit that Britain "created" Israel for its own
>>>nefarious purposes and aided Jewish immigration - whereas, in the
>>>real world, the Brits shut down ALL Jewish immigration several
>>>times, most notably in 1939 - when Jews were desperate to get out
>>>of Nazi Germany - and again at the end 1945, when the Brits began
>>>interning the survivors of Hitler's death camps in concentration
>>>camps.
>
>>Well, think what you want. Your summary is silly and inaccurate
>>on what I have read of Shlaim.
>
>What you have "read OF Shlaim"? You haven't actually READ Shlaim
>for yourself?
Of course I have, I just haven't read everything he ever wrote. My phrase was
ambiguous.
>Had you actually read Oxford professor Shlaim's silly "Iron Wall",
>you would know I know whereof I speak.
I've read it cover to cover. Like all books it has its faults, but I heartily
recommend it, particularly on the diplomacy in the earlier years, which is what
what Shlaim's heart is in. For someone whose mind is imperviously made up,
perhaps it reads differently; I'm sure that Hamas members would have a bone to
pick with such a book too.
>>>>viz. the TV movie where Ingrid Bergman played
>>>>Golda Meir.
>
>>>SUCH a source.
>
>>My point is just that your apparent desire to debate the existence
>>of something well known enough to have been in a TV movie, to which
>>I have already given an Israeli state archive source,
>
>Your alleged "sources" have zero credibility.
OK, Israeli state archives have zero credibility.
>>>I've seen several accounts of "what really happened". The only
>>>certainties are that actually aiding the Palestinian Arabs was
>>>a very low priority for the invading Arab states, and that
>>>the king of Transjordan was adamantly opposed to the creation
>>>of a Husseini-dominated Arab state on his borders.
>
>>(I purposely phrased what I wrote to cover practically any
>>interpretation of what everyone agrees on.)
>
>IOW, you posted another load of bullshit.
Fine with me, again, I wrote what I did in an innocuous manner, that I didn't
think would cause anyone problems.
>>Other certainties involve secret discussions between two supposedly
>>opposed parties just before the crucial dates,
>
>Specify "crucial dates".
The date of the UN partitition plan and the declaration of the State of Israel.
Why are you asking me questions that I am sure that we both know the answer of
and both know the other knows too? What is your point? What are you trying to
say happened? What are you trying to criticize about what I said?
>>and the fact that what happened on the ground accorded with the
>>well-supported idea
>
>Supported by whom?
>
>>that there was some kind of understanding - e.g. Ben-Gurion calling
>>off a campaign to get the West Bank at one point.
>
>When did this so-called "campaign to get the West Bank" take place,
>and who commanded it?
My wife just drove off with some books in my car. IIRC Allon? proposed it and it
didn't occur, of course. All I'm trying to say is that both sides operated at
times with the idea that the other was not trying to utterly destroy it and
might be satisfied with a compromise solution, just like the one that actually
happened, after some clashes.
>BTW, There were, in fact, at least two discussions between King
>Abdullah, Eliyahu Sasson, and Golda. The accounts given were Golda's.
>
>>Why do you ask me for sources that I have already provided?
>
>See above. Your "sources" are what you have read ABOUT Avi Shlaim's
>Iron Wall and a TV movie about Golda.
Plus what I gave as a source.
And many other sources, on all sides. As I said there are a lot of books on
the matter. In my opinion "what actually happened" was the most important
thing. Israel and Jordan divided up the territory of the proposed Palestinian
state, just as if there had been an agreement. Do I have to provide sources for
this? You seem to be talking above as if you disagree with even this, which is
why I can't take you too seriously. I don't think that I'm going to post again
on this in the near future, so you can make fun of me to your heart's content.
>>What is your take on what happened? That there was no rough agreement,
>>no meetings, no idea on each side that the other might not be a total
>>enemy?
>
>Golda reported after the second meeting that Abdullah told them he
>was only one amongst many, and could not stand against his brother
>Arabs.
>
>>You are hard to understand.
>
>Do you have trouble with facts?
Well you seem to have trouble in a even stating something that purports to be
factual, and even stating precisely what you find objectionable about the very
minimal statements I have made.
>>>The facts do not generally reflect badly on Israel, but the
>>>bullshit does.
>
>>Why do you think the "bullshit" reflects particularly badly on Israel?
>>(If I understand your views as to what is bullshit and what is fact.)
>
>Apparently you are experiencing some trouble with facts.
Again, you won't even say what you think the facts are.
I admit that I don't have access to divine revelations, so yes, I do have
trouble with facts, they can be hard to get; you have to read different peoples'
interpretations and different primary sources. I said before that I didn't find
the matter all that interesting at the moment.
>>I find it amazing that any adult could think so, or think that any
>>state that has ever existed always acted with such nobility that
>>such actions could have besmirched its escutcheon, to use appropriately
>>ridiculous words.
>
>All governments are inherently evil. The difference is a matter
>of degree.
Well, to (surely) misquote one of my favorite quotes, along with other
misquoters of a famous misquoter: perhaps it is necessary to say that man is in
some way good, but what a higher, what a nobler thing it is to say that man is
evil.
Maybe if you understood what that means, you wouldn't get so huffy all the time.
>>>>>It was tacitly acknowledged by all countries, none of whom
>>>>>protested the annexation.
>
>>>>Some Palestinians did, one in particular.
>
>>>What was his name, and was he a Palestinian Jew or a
>>>Palestinian Arab?
>
>>You answer your own question below.
>
>You do not. Why is that? You can't back your own claim?
>
>Point out to me WHO were "some Palestinians" who protested
>Jordan's annexation of the territories allocated to the
>proposed Arab state, and the name of the "one in particular".
Of course I mean King Abdullah's assassin, and frankly, I don't remember his
name, nor care to look it up. Why? Is it important? If you asked me to back
up the fact that Israel has a Mediterranean coastline, I'd refuse to back that
up too.
>>>>It got the Arab countries mad at Abdullah and they almost kicked
>>>>him out of the Arab League, called him a cad and a bounder.
>
>>>It got him assassinated by Husseini terrorists.
>
>>>>Maybe one of 'em did make a formal protest? I dunno.
>
>You claimed above "some Palestinians, one in particular"
>protested the Jordanian annexation. Name them.
>
>>>>>What, exactly, are these alleged "relevant treaties and laws"?
>
>>>>UN GA 181(II) and the Lausanne Protocol for two.
>
>>>You seem not to have read the Lausanne Protocol of 12 May 1949.
>>>And in case you haven't kept up on current event, the Arabs
>>>rejected 181.
>
>>http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0aad6036b6377e6d0525672e0058609e/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,A%2F927
>>Have you read it?
>
>I have read it and posted it several times. You seem not to
>be able to comprehend the simple fact that THE LEAGUE OF ARAB
>STATES REJECTED UNGAR 181.
Because they thought it didn't give Israel enough land, yes. :-)
How? Sure, it's a one-sided interpretation of the very short document, but it
is not outrageous.
>In the protocol, as in UNGAR
>191, the word "refugees" is never qualified.
I don't understand your point or what you mean by "qualified" here, and I doubt
anybody else does either. I think you mean 194 (or 181?). I don't think the
international control of atomic energy has anything to do with the matter. :-)
In 194 "refugees" is "qualified" in a way that Israel likes to point too,
anyways.
>>agree to use the 181 map as a basis for negotiation.
>>It essentially made 181 into somewhat solid international law.
>
>Really?
Yes.
No, it is one side of debate, naturally the one that favors them.
Just as Israeli government websites present their side.
Neither deserves the adjective "amusing."
Anyone reasonable would look at them both, and wouldn't be surprised to see that
there's good and less good material at both.
A 2-state solution may not at all be the best one, but at least in principle it
recognizes both peoples' rights.
What is wrong with that? Aren't these human beings with human rights, in
particular ones with a long record of their right to self-determination being
recognized even though it has not been exercised?
Just what is your objection to these people having a (mini)state of their own?
Do you think Israel is always 100% right? Do you really think that Israel has a
better moral and legal claim to the West Bank and Gaza? Why?
>Deborah
Russil Wvong
> >1967]? (Obviously this is an important issue because this is when
> >Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.)
> >My main sources of information are William Polk's "The Arab World
> >Today", Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", and Avishai Margalit's
> >articles in the New York Review of Books. I don't think any of them
> >could be described as extreme.
>
> Yes, but your statement is not at all supported by them.
?? Morris says that after Egypt forced UNEF to withdraw, "Nasser
appears to have submitted to the momentum of his (or 'Amr's) previous
actions." Polk says that when Nasser announced that he would close
the Straits of Tiran, "the die was cast. It would have been almost
impossible for Nasser to back down from his public statements."
Given that the crisis had escalated past the point of no return,
as crises tend to do, Israel had a choice between attacking first
or waiting to be attacked, and chose to attack first. Is this
really such an extreme statement?
>> > To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily ...
>
> Nobody in the American or Israeli military or intelligence services
> was at all surprised. The general populace was different.
Not surprised that Israel won, or not surprised that they won so easily?
Again, the Israeli leadership was anticipating heavy losses. Morris
says that US intelligence predicted an Israeli victory within a few
days, but doesn't say how confident they were in their prediction.
(Obviously, predictions of the outcome of war often fail.)
john z
>john z <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
>> >Is it so extreme [to state that Israel was about to be attacked in
>> >1967]? (Obviously this is an important issue because this is when
>> >Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.)
>> >My main sources of information are William Polk's "The Arab World
>> >Today", Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", and Avishai Margalit's
>> >articles in the New York Review of Books. I don't think any of them
>> >could be described as extreme.
>>
>> Yes, but your statement is not at all supported by them.
>
>?? Morris says that after Egypt forced UNEF to withdraw, "Nasser
>appears to have submitted to the momentum of his (or 'Amr's) previous
>actions." Polk says that when Nasser announced that he would close
>the Straits of Tiran, "the die was cast. It would have been almost
>impossible for Nasser to back down from his public statements."
>Given that the crisis had escalated past the point of no return,
>as crises tend to do, Israel had a choice between attacking first
>or waiting to be attacked, and chose to attack first. Is this
>really such an extreme statement?
If even Begin disagrees . . , don't you think it might be?
If Israel had allowed the Straits to remain closed, Nasser would have had his
propaganda victory - he wouldn't have had to back down from his public
statements and very probably nothing would have happened immediately. Why
wouldn't Nasser want to quit while he was ahead against a nation whose armed
forces he knew were superior?
I'm not trying to argue what should have been done or who was right or wrong -
the point is that without some quick creative diplomacy *someone* would have
had to back down from their public statements: Nasser saying it's closed, and
Israel saying for a long time that we won't let you, and that is what put it
beyond the point of no return. Doing nothing would be backing down, so the ball
was in Israel's court to do something - to it the closure was a recognized casus
belli, so it was *already* attacked in that sense, and thought of itself as just
counterattacking.
>>> > To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily ...
>>
>> Nobody in the American or Israeli military or intelligence services
>> was at all surprised. The general populace was different.
>
>Not surprised that Israel won, or not surprised that they won so easily?
>Again, the Israeli leadership was anticipating heavy losses. Morris
>says that US intelligence predicted an Israeli victory within a few
>days, but doesn't say how confident they were in their prediction.
>(Obviously, predictions of the outcome of war often fail.)
Everybody in the US military and every intelligence agency unanimously and
confidently thought that there was no real contest at all, at least that's what
I've read; it would be astonishing that people would be that definite about it
if it weren't true. I'd be very surprised if you can find a source that says
something different, that there was real doubt in the US. The Israeli public
did get very scared, and naturally enough the Israeli military had a bit more
reason to be cautious in their estimates than the US.
Russil Wvong
> > My main sources of information are William Polk's "The Arab World
> > Today", Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", and Avishai Margalit's
> > articles in the New York Review of Books. I don't think any of them
> > could be described as extreme.
>
> Polk is an Arabist and Morris is a revisionist. Neither
> are to be relied upon.
Certainly Morris is more sympathetic to the Palestinians than the
Israeli mainstream, but from what I can tell, he provides a
reasonable accounting of the facts -- his work isn't simply
pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli propaganda. For example, he
writes the following about Amin al-Husseini, the ex-mufti of
Jerusalem:
On November 28, 1941, al-Husseini met Hitler and promised to
organize a new, pan-Arab revolt (similar to the one Hussein,
the sharif of Mecca, had organized against the Turks in
World War I); and like the British in World War I, Hitler
promsed the Arabs postwar independence (as well as the
abolition of the Jewish National Home). Hitler apparently
liked what he saw, including Husseini's blue eyes; he said
Husseini must have had "more than one Aryan among his
ancestors and one who may be descended from the best Roman
stock."
During 1943-44 Husseini wrote to Eastern European leaders
asking that they bar the emigration to Palestine of hundreds
of Jewish children and adults. In a letter to the Hungarian
foreign minister, he suggested that the children be sent to
Poland, under German supervision. Whether Husseini was fully
aware of the Holocaust, approved of it, or directly aided the
Nazis in its implementation, he had without doubt "cooperated
with the most barbaric regime in modern times," even in the
understated words of his generally sympathetic Arab biographer.
I generally try to "triangulate" my sources of information, to check
their reliability by looking for critical commentary. I did a search
on Benny Morris on the web and found a highly critical review of
"Righteous Victims" by Efraim Karsh (published in Middle East Forum,
a pro-Israeli publication associated with Daniel Pipes), but Karsh's
criticisms didn't seem very substantial to me. For example:
Through the omission of key passages, Morris repeatedly distorts
many quotations. He makes a specialty of partial quotes from
Ben-Gurion's books, in the process turning their original intention
upside down. Morris claims that Ben-Gurion sought to hide his
own views, but this is also wrong.
Consider, for example, the following partial quote, about the
same meeting and from a book by Ben-Gurion, in which he discusses
the departed Palestinians. The original text reads as follows:
And we must prevent at all costs their return meanwhile
<i.e., until the end of the war>. We, as well as world public
opinion cannot ignore the horrible fact that 700,000 <Jewish>
people are confronted here with 27 million <Arabs>, one against
forty. Humanity's conscience was not shocked when 27 million
attacked 700,000 — after six million Jews had been slaughtered
in Europe. It will not be just if they demand of us to
allow back to Abu Kabir and Jaffa those who tried to destroy us.
Morris provides only this truncated text:
And we must prevent at all costs their return meanwhile. . . .
It will not be just if they demand of us to allow back to
Abu Kabir and Jaffa those who tried to destroy us.
[http://www.meforum.org/meq/march99/benny.shtml]
My reaction is, I don't see this as a major distortion, just a
summary: the Arabs had tried to destroy the Jews.
MEMRI reports on a Yediot Ahronot interview with Morris:
For the past two decades, Benny Morris – a prominent Israeli and
international academic, and a leading figure in Israel's
Post-Zionism camp – has been advocating the notion that Israel's
official version of history is filled with misconceptions and
misleading myths. However, in a surprising recent interview,
Morris now argues that others have misconstrued his thesis.
He argues that the Palestinians, not Israel, are to blame for the
ongoing conflict and for the current state of affairs.
In an interview with Yediot Ahronot, Morris clarified his positions
regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (this interview followed
a September 2001 lecture at UC Berkley's Theological Institute in
which Morris first articulated these positions).
[http://www.memri.org/sd/SP31001.html]
I haven't been able to find much on-line commentary on Polk. The
back cover of the book has a brief blurb from Jerusalem Post
Magazine: "A balanced, extremely informative and fair-minded work."
In the introduction, Polk says that in Israel the book was severely
criticized (in Egypt it was banned outright), but he also mentions
that he's undertaken a confidential diplomatic mission for the Israeli
government. So I'm pretty sure Polk isn't mindlessly anti-Israeli
either. That's certainly not the impression I get from his book.
Polk's conclusion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
... it seems likely to me that we are watching the last act
of a long drama, a true tragedy, in which good people are locked
in a struggle that, ultimately, will certainly severely harm and
may even ruin them both.
Any comments on Avishai Margalit? I think he's also a leftist,
but his articles don't seem like propaganda to me.
> See instead Conor Cruise O'Brien's The Siege.
I'll look it up.
> >[http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm]
>
> The Washington Report is a pro-Pallie propaganda site ...
Yes, I know. I'd call it anti-Israeli. I'm only quoting it because
it reports Begin's speech.
> > Here's what Morris has to say in "Righteous Victims":
>
> Morris takes very light view about the blockade of the Straits,
> which threatened Israel's shipping. He writes misleadingly that
> Israel considered it a casus belli and fails to mention that so
> would any other state.
?? I'm not sure I understand this criticism. Why is it misleading
for Morris to say that Israel considered the blockade of the Straits
to be an act of war? That's not sufficient?
> >>They clearly were in 1956, 1978 and 1982, along with numerous other
> >>relatively minor occasions. (of course there were other such minor
> >>occasions too from the other sides.)
>
> > Fair enough.
>
> No, it isn't. Not without any evidence whatsoever of these alleged
> "numerous other relatively minor occasions".
Certainly it's clear that Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 and invaded
Lebanon in 1982. No?
> Thank you, Russil Wvong, for backing your statements with sources.
You're welcome.
Deborah Nyob
>Certainly Morris is more sympathetic to the Palestinians than the
>Israeli mainstream, but from what I can tell, he provides a
>reasonable accounting of the facts --
Actually, Morris doesn't. See:
http://www.meforum.org/meq/march99/benny.shtml
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2000/03-31/features6.html
http://www.memri.org/sd/SP31001.html
http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-editor.html
From the last:
"In considering the impact of the new historians' perspective on
their scholarship, it is appropriate to begin with Benny Morris,
if only because his research and writing are often cited, with some
justification, as being of a higher quality than that of other
partisans of the new history. In 1948 and After: Israel and the
Palestinians (1994), Morris acknowledged that his research agenda
was shaped by political opinions that were at variance with those
held by earlier historians ("the political views of the new historians
and current political concerns were among the factors that led these
historians to research particular subjects"). [...]
"These are not "facts" that one discovers in recently opened archives.
They are indicative of profound moral evaluations, which may or may
not have been shaped by some formative archival experience. It is
such evaluations which have allowed Morris and others to write a
sweeping new narrative of Zionist history that goes far beyond
anything suggested by the revelations of recently declassified
documents. Thus Morris' latest book, Righteous Victims, argues
that Zionism was from the outset "a colonizing and expansionist
ideology and movement," which was infected by "the European colonist's
mental obliteration of the ‘natives.'" It is this damning
characterization that permits him to conclude that the Zionists
reduced the Arabs to "objects to be utilized when necessary," rather
than human beings with legitimate aspirations.
"Needless to say, someone else examining the facts Morris presents
might easily describe these matters differently. But once seen from
such a perspective, the factual landscape of Israel's history—both
the "new" facts and those that have been known for decades—immediately
takes on an ugly slant that no amount of arguing over the facts can
set aright."
>his work isn't simply pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli propaganda.
No, it isn't.
>I generally try to "triangulate" my sources of information, to check
>their reliability by looking for critical commentary. I did a search
>on Benny Morris on the web and found a highly critical review of
>"Righteous Victims" by Efraim Karsh (published in Middle East Forum,
That's the first link I provided above, along with others.
>Karsh's criticisms didn't seem very substantial to me.
I thought they were quite substantial.
> Consider, for example, the following partial quote, about the
> same meeting and from a book by Ben-Gurion, in which he discusses
> the departed Palestinians. The original text reads as follows:
>
> And we must prevent at all costs their return meanwhile
> <i.e., until the end of the war>. We, as well as world public
> opinion cannot ignore the horrible fact that 700,000 <Jewish>
> people are confronted here with 27 million <Arabs>, one against
> forty. Humanity's conscience was not shocked when 27 million
> attacked 700,000 — after six million Jews had been slaughtered
> in Europe. It will not be just if they demand of us to
> allow back to Abu Kabir and Jaffa those who tried to destroy us.
>
> Morris provides only this truncated text:
>
> And we must prevent at all costs their return meanwhile. . . .
> It will not be just if they demand of us to allow back to
> Abu Kabir and Jaffa those who tried to destroy us.
> [http://www.meforum.org/meq/march99/benny.shtml]
> My reaction is, I don't see this as a major distortion, just a
> summary: the Arabs had tried to destroy the Jews.
To me, it's a gross distortion.
> MEMRI reports on a Yediot Ahronot interview with Morris:
> For the past two decades, Benny Morris – a prominent Israeli and
> international academic, and a leading figure in Israel's
> Post-Zionism camp – has been advocating the notion that Israel's
> official version of history is filled with misconceptions and
> misleading myths. However, in a surprising recent interview,
> Morris now argues that others have misconstrued his thesis.
> He argues that the Palestinians, not Israel, are to blame for the
> ongoing conflict and for the current state of affairs.
>
> In an interview with Yediot Ahronot, Morris clarified his positions
> regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (this interview followed
> a September 2001 lecture at UC Berkley's Theological Institute in
> which Morris first articulated these positions).
> [http://www.memri.org/sd/SP31001.html]
Heh. I provided that link, too.
>I haven't been able to find much on-line commentary on Polk.
Not having read him, I can't coment.
>Polk's conclusion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
>... it seems likely to me that we are watching the last act
>of a long drama, a true tragedy, in which good people are locked
>in a struggle that, ultimately, will certainly severely harm and
>may even ruin them both.
It seems unnecessarily emotional.
>Any comments on Avishai Margalit? I think he's also a leftist,
>but his articles don't seem like propaganda to me.
He's a philosophy prof at Hebrew U. I can't remember what I
read of his works [one] well enough to comment.
>>See instead Conor Cruise O'Brien's The Siege.
>I'll look it up.
Also try Sachar, A History of Israel. His judicial presentation
of the general Arab view surprised me when I read it.
>>>[http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm]
>>The Washington Report is a pro-Pallie propaganda site ...
>Yes, I know. I'd call it anti-Israeli. I'm only quoting it
>because it reports Begin's speech.
I'd be careful on that. Edward Said claimed to have quoted from
Begin's The Revolt, but Said's claimed quote was nowhere in the
book.
>Why is it misleading for Morris to say that Israel considered
>the blockade of the Straits to be an act of war? That's not
>sufficient?
It's the way he put it. ISRAEL "considered" it an act of war.
So would any other country have considered it.
>>>>They clearly were in 1956, 1978 and 1982, along with numerous other
>>>>relatively minor occasions. (of course there were other such minor
>>>>occasions too from the other sides.)
>>>Fair enough.
>>No, it isn't. Not without any evidence whatsoever of these alleged
>>"numerous other relatively minor occasions".
>Certainly it's clear that Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 and invaded
>Lebanon in 1982. No?
Britain and France attacked in '56, along with Israel. (The political
shenanigans which led up to the war should be dubbed A Tragicomedy
of Errors. How could anyone take seriously military operations
named "Musketeer" and "Omelet"?) What I wanted was evidence of
the "numerous other relatively minor occasions" alleged above.
>>Thank you, Russil Wvong, for backing your statements with sources.
>You're welcome.
>Russil Wvong
>Vancouver, Canada
>www.geocities.com/rwvong
Thanks again.
Jacob Garbuz
> >the Straits of Tiran, "the die was cast. It would have been almost
> >impossible for Nasser to back down from his public statements."
> >Given that the crisis had escalated past the point of no return,
> >as crises tend to do, Israel had a choice between attacking first
> >or waiting to be attacked, and chose to attack first. Is this
> >really such an extreme statement?
>
> If even Begin disagrees . . , don't you think it might be?
> If Israel had allowed the Straits to remain closed, Nasser would have had
his
> propaganda victory - he wouldn't have had to back down from his public
> statements and very probably nothing would have happened immediately. Why
> wouldn't Nasser want to quit while he was ahead against a nation whose
armed
> forces he knew were superior? <
Israel's "superior" armed force is built on a citizen army that has be be
mobilized. Factories,
farms, much if not most of the economy has to close down while the reserve
army consisting
of most of Israel's semi-able bodied men sit in a desert for days on end
waiting for the US
to send a flotilla (as promised in the 1957 Dulles Memorandum) to show up to
break the
blockade. Only when it was confirmed from Washington that no such
international or US flotilla was ever going to show up, was the decision
made to pre-empt. Why couldn't Israel
just keep its armed forces fully mobilized, its factories shut down, and its
only port to the East
and oil supplies closed down? For the same reason that the US wouldn't sit
by as the Japanese
blockade America's West Coast after Pearl Harbor. The US could have not
declared war and
ignored the Japanese too, right?
> I'm not trying to argue what should have been done or who was right or
wrong -
> the point is that without some quick creative diplomacy *someone* would
have
> had to back down from their public statements: Nasser saying it's closed,
and
> Israel saying for a long time that we won't let you, and that is what put
it
> beyond the point of no return. Doing nothing would be backing down, so
the ball
> was in Israel's court to do something - to it the closure was a recognized
casus
> belli, so it was *already* attacked in that sense, and thought of itself
as just
> counterattacking.<
The US was SUPPOSED to do something because under the Dulles Memorandum
given
to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in 1957, to coax Israel into withdrawing from
the Sinai then,
the US and the international community assured Israel that in the event of
Nasser trying to
blockade Eilat again, it would run the blockade. That promise, and the
Wolf's whistle, proved
equally trustworthy.
> >>> > To everyone's surprise, Israel won the war easily ...
> >>
> >> Nobody in the American or Israeli military or intelligence services
> >> was at all surprised. <
Sure. As long as Israel was FULLY MOBILIZED and its economy shut down! How
many weeks was Israel going to be able to withstand that? Israel doesn't
have a large standing army.
It is fully dependent on reservists who give 30-45 days annually, and are
frequently called up.
And when they are, businesses are either severely curtailed or shut down
altogether!
It was easy for McNamara to tell Israel to take it easy and not shoot first.
It was easy for DeGaulle. It wasn't the French or US economies that were
going to shut down. It wasn't the US West Coast or the Port of Marseilles
that were under
blockade. And if ISrael hadn't preempted, it would have won anyway, but with
possibly thousands of men's lives lost unnecessarily just for waiting for
nobody to show up and rescue it!
Deborah Nyob
>>>Then what did Israel do to these lands? They don't exist?
>>>You'd better tell the Israelis that live there.
>>Israel seized and occupied the "West Bank" of the Kingdom
>>of Jordan and the Gaza Strip, which Egypt had controlled
>>for 19 years.
"john z" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Obviously, that's not what I was talking about.
>I was perfectly clear; why don't you address what I did talk about?
What, actually, did you talk about? "Israel seized half the
Palestinian state". It didn't.
>>Jordanians are not Arabs? That's news to them.
>Your statement sort of made it sound like the population of these
>territories seized their own land to prevent the creation of a state
>there.
The statement "Arabs seized the land allocated to the proposed Arab
state in Palestine" is clear to anyone who has knowledge of the
history of the region at that time.
> >>>Shlaim is a revisionist whose bias is so evident that his (mis)
> >>>interpretations of the facts should be categorized as fiction.
> >>>He dwells with loving detail on Israeli "attrocities" against
> >>>peaceful, peace-loving Arabs, leaving out what the Arabs did to
> >>>prompt these actions, along with the Arab states public avowals
> >>>to destroy Israel and their support of terrorism. Arab leaders
> >>>are all nice guys with good intention, whereas Israeli leaders
> >>>are all lying, cheating, double-dealing Evil Joooos, except for
> >>>most Labour leaders (B-G not included), who were all inspired by
> >>>Marxist ideals. (Huh?) Shlaim also doesn't fail to trot out that
> >>>dessicated old bullshit that Britain "created" Israel for its own
> >>>nefarious purposes and aided Jewish immigration - whereas, in the
> >>>real world, the Brits shut down ALL Jewish immigration several
> >>>times, most notably in 1939 - when Jews were desperate to get out
> >>>of Nazi Germany - and again at the end 1945, when the Brits began
> >>>interning the survivors of Hitler's death camps in concentration
> >>>camps.
>>>Well, think what you want. Your summary is silly and inaccurate
>>>on what I have read of Shlaim.
>>What you have "read OF Shlaim"? You haven't actually READ Shlaim
>>for yourself?
>Of course I have, I just haven't read everything he ever wrote.
>My phrase was ambiguous.
AFAIK, Shlaim is prof of International Relations at St Anthony's,
Oxford, and has probably written other books in his area of
expertise. If he has, I haven't read them either.
>>Had you actually read Oxford professor Shlaim's silly "Iron Wall",
>>you would know I know whereof I speak.
>I've read it cover to cover. Like all books it has its faults, but I
>heartily recommend it, particularly on the diplomacy in the earlier
>years, which is what what Shlaim's heart is in.
>>>>>viz. the TV movie where Ingrid Bergman played
>>>>>Golda Meir.
>>>>SUCH a source.
>>>My point is just that your apparent desire to debate the existence
>>>of something well known enough to have been in a TV movie, to which
>>>I have already given an Israeli state archive source,
>>Your alleged "sources" have zero credibility.
>OK, Israeli state archives have zero credibility.
Your alleged source was NOT Israeli state archives.
>>>Other certainties involve secret discussions between two supposedly
>>>opposed parties just before the crucial dates,
>>Specify "crucial dates".
>The date of the UN partitition plan and the declaration of the State of Israel.
>Why are you asking me questions that I am sure that we both know the answer of
>and both know the other knows too? What is your point? What are you trying to
>say happened? What are you trying to criticize about what I said?
My criticism is that you are not factual and the sources you
claim have very little credibility.
>>When did this so-called "campaign to get the West Bank" take place,
>>and who commanded it?
>My wife just drove off with some books in my car.
How convenient.
>IIRC Allon? proposed it and it didn't occur, of course.
“It was a plan to concentrate a mobile force in order to execute a deep
flanking movement from the Bet Shan valley through the Jordan Valley,
toward Jericho. It had a twofold objective: to cut off the Arab Legion and
the Iraqi Expeditionary Forces and also to reach Jerusalem from the rear,
in cooperation with the Israeli forces on the western side, which would
apply concurrent pressure.
“’Don’t worry,’ my father told me, ‘Jerusalem won’t run away,
you’ll get there from another direction.’
“A more painful disappointment occurred in June and July 1948. I was
very eager to be put in charge of the central front, which would include
Jerusalem. I even formulated an entire strategic theory in accordance with
which the initial breakthrough should be made in the center, with the thrusts
on the flanks coming afterwards. I had faith in that theory and its practical
results, but my request to be appointed commander of the central front was
not granted. I was put in command of the southern front.
“My father said, “[T]he Negev can live without [Jerusalem] and Jerusalem
can’t without the Negev. Take the commander of the Negev in good spirits.
I’m sure you’ll get to the capital from the Negev.” And the fact is that when
I was appointed commander of the southern front I put in a proposal to
capture Jerusalem and the entire west bank by means of a pincer movement
from the north and south…Unfortunately, that proposal was also rejected,
to be followed by our lamentation for having lost the chance forever.”
--Y Allon, My Father’s House, pp196-198
Now that, dear boy, is a cite and a source.
>All I'm trying to say is that both sides operated at times with the
>idea that the other was not trying to utterly destroy it and might be
>satisfied with a compromise solution, just like the one that actually
>happened, after some clashes.
Whatever.
>>BTW, There were, in fact, at least two discussions between King
>>Abdullah, Eliyahu Sasson, and Golda. The accounts given were Golda's.
>>>Why do you ask me for sources that I have already provided?
>>See above. Your "sources" are what you have read ABOUT Avi Shlaim's
>>Iron Wall and a TV movie about Golda.
>Plus what I gave as a source.
>And many other sources, on all sides. As I said there are a lot of books on
>the matter.
You have obviously read very few of them.
"I met twice with King Abdullah of Transjordan, who was King
Hussein's grandfather. Although both those talks remained closely
guarded secrets for many years - long after Abdullah's assassination
by his Arab enemies (the mufti's henchmen) in July 1951. Too, Abdullah's
assassination made an impression on all subsequent Arab leaders, and
I remember that Nasser once said to an emissary whom we dispatched
to Cairo, "If Ben-Gurion came to Egypt to take to me, he would
return home as a conquering hero. But if I went to him, I would be
shot when I came back." I am afraid that is still the situation.
"The first time I met with King Abdullah was early in November,
1947...He soon made the heart f the matter clear: He would not join
in any Arab attack on us. He would always remain our friend, he
said, and like us, he wanted peace more than anything else. After
all, we had a common enemy, the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amim el-
Husseini.
[...]
"Throughout January and February we maintained contact with
Abdullah as a rule through the good offices of a mutual friend...
By the first wekk of May, there was no doubt that for all his
assurances, Abdullah had, in fact, thrown his lot in with the
Arab League.
[...]
"Abdullah entered the room...'Have you broken your promise to
me, after all?' I asked him.
"He didn't answer my question directly. Instead, he said, "When
made that promise, I thought I was in control of my own destiny
and could do what I thought was right, but ssince then I have
learned otherwise. I am one of five..."
--Golda, My Life, pp 250-251
"Abdullah had no love for Golda Meir. He had met her on the eve
of the war when she tried to persuade him not to take part in it,
and he bore her a grudge ever since. According to him, she had
placed him in an impossible position, giving him the alternative
of submitting to an ultimatum delivered through the lips of a
woman or going to war. This, "of course," obliged him to take
the second option and join the other Arab states in their invasion
of Israel. When he was told at one of the talks that Golda was
serving as our minister in Moscow, his immediate reponse was,
"Good! Leave her there!"
--Dayan, Story of My Life, p 137
>In my opinion "what actually happened" was the most important thing.
>Israel and Jordan divided up the territory of the proposed Palestinian
>state, just as if there had been an agreement.
Considering how many were killed on both sides, it was one
lousy "agreement".
>Do I have to provide sources for this?
For your opinion that there was some kind of Israel-Jordan
agreement in 1948? See above and the following:
"In November 1947, therefore, [Abdullah] held a secret meeting
with Mrs. Golda Meyerson (later Meir)...The conversation was
entirely amicable. If the United Nations decided to partition
Palestine, Abdullah explained, he frankly preferred to annex
the Arab sector to his kingdom. Mrs. Meyerson foresaw no diffi-
culties, agreeing with Abdullah that 'we both have a common
enemy - the Mufti.' She added that the Jews would do nothing
to breach the partition line envisaged in the United Nations
resolution, but what would happen in the Arab area was no
business of theirs.
"This genial exchange was typical of the understanding that
had always existed not only between Abdullah and the Zionists
but also, we recall, between Abdullah's late brother Feisal and
the Jews, and was accordingly a source of deep suspicion through-
out the Arab world. In later years, continued reference would be
made to the 'Hashemite-Zionist partnership.' 'Of all the Arab
leaders, King Abdullah was closest to the hearts of the Zionists,'
wrote the Iraqi historian Muhammad Udah. 'Their most important
writers considered his tenure on the Jordanian throne one of the
greatest assurances for the preservation of Israel.' Yet as late
as Tewfik Pasha's discussion with Bevin, and Abdullah's conversation
with Mrs. Meyerson, it was still by no means certain that the Arab
League woujld authorize military intervention in Palestine. Only
later, when this step became increasingly likely, did Abdullah
admit on April 26: 'All our efforts to find a peaceful solution
have failed. The only way left to us is war. I shall have the
pleasure and honour to save Palestine.'[...]
"He explained his position to Mrs. Meyerson in a second conver-
sation of May 11, this one in Amman...Abdullah implored his visitors
to postpone the declaration of the Jewish state and to accept instead
an undivided Palestine with autonomous Jewish areas. Mrs. Meyerson
turned down the offer...[T]he king explained that he had intended
to honor his original agreement not to invade Jewish territory, but
now, 'I am one among five. I have no alternative and I cannot act
otherwise.'
"As the discussion continued, Mrs. Meyerson warned Abdullah that
the Jews were his only friends. 'I know it,' he replied, 'and I have
no illusions on that score. I know the other Arabs and their "good
intentions." I firmly believe Divine Providence has restored you,
a Semite people who were banished to Europe and have benefitted by
its progress, to the Semitic East which needs your knowledge and
initiative...I deplore the coming bloodshed and destruction. Let
us hope we shall meet again and will not sever our relations.'...
On their way back to Palestine, the two Jewish visitors could see
at a distance Iraqi army units moving toward the front with their
heavy transport and extensive field artillery."
--H.M. Sachar, A History of Israel, pp 321-223
>You seem to be talking above as if you disagree with even this, which
>is why I can't take you too seriously. I don't think that I'm going to
>post again on this in the near future, so you can make fun of me to
>your heart's content.
Whatever.
>>>What is your take on what happened? That there was no rough agreement,
>>>no meetings, no idea on each side that the other might not be a total
>>>enemy?
>>Golda reported after the second meeting that Abdullah told them he
>>was only one amongst many, and could not stand against his brother
>>Arabs.
>>>You are hard to understand.
>>Do you have trouble with facts?
>Well you seem to have trouble in a even stating something that purports to be
>factual, and even stating precisely what you find objectionable about the very
>minimal statements I have made.
See above.
>>>Why do you think the "bullshit" reflects particularly badly on Israel?
>>>(If I understand your views as to what is bullshit and what is fact.)
>>Apparently you are experiencing some trouble with facts.
>Again, you won't even say what you think the facts are.
See above.
>I admit that I don't have access to divine revelations
You don't have access to Israeli state archives either.
>>All governments are inherently evil. The difference is a matter
>>of degree.
>Well, to (surely) misquote one of my favorite quotes, along with other
>misquoters of a famous misquoter: perhaps it is necessary to say that man is in
>some way good, but what a higher, what a nobler thing it is to say that man is
>evil.
>Maybe if you understood what that means, you wouldn't get so huffy all
>the time.
I have no trouble in either understanding the statement or
disbelieving it.
>>>>>>It was tacitly acknowledged by all countries, none of whom
>>>>>>protested the annexation.
>>>>>Some Palestinians did, one in particular.
>>>>What was his name, and was he a Palestinian Jew or a
>>>>Palestinian Arab?
>>>You answer your own question below.
>>You do not. Why is that? You can't back your own claim?
>>Point out to me WHO were "some Palestinians" who protested
>>Jordan's annexation of the territories allocated to the
>>proposed Arab state, and the name of the "one in particular".
>Of course I mean King Abdullah's assassin, and frankly, I don't
>remember his name, nor care to look it up. Why? Is it important?
"King Abdullah continued to negotiate secretly with the Israelis
for new, permanent boundaries between Israel and Jordan and for a
corridor through Israel to the port of Haifa, Gaza, or Ashkelon.
In the midst of these talks, on July 20, 1951, the King was shot
to death as he was entering the Mosque of Omar in the Old City
of Jerusalem for Friday services...The Mufti and his Arab Higher
Committee firmly denied complicity in the murder, and two of the
Mufti's brothers were acquitted for lack of evidence. But a cousin,
Mousa Abdullah el-Husseini, was sentenced to death."
-- D. Kurzman, Genesis 1948, p 715
>If you asked me to back up the fact that Israel has a Mediterranean
>coastline, I'd refuse to back that up too.
Whatever.
>>>>>It got the Arab countries mad at Abdullah and they almost kicked
>>>>>him out of the Arab League, called him a cad and a bounder.
>>>>It got him assassinated by Husseini terrorists.
>>>>>Maybe one of 'em did make a formal protest? I dunno.
>>You claimed above "some Palestinians, one in particular"
>>protested the Jordanian annexation. Name them.
Evidently you canNOT name them.
>>>http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0aad6036b6377e6d0525672e0058609e/4a5ef29a5e977e2e852561010079e43c!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,A%2F927
>>>Have you read it?
>>I have read it and posted it several times. You seem not to
>>be able to comprehend the simple fact that THE LEAGUE OF ARAB
>>STATES REJECTED UNGAR 181.
>Because they thought it didn't give Israel enough land, yes. :-)
<yawn>
It's quite representative.
>>In the protocol, as in UNGAR
>>191, the word "refugees" is never qualified.
>I don't understand your point or what you mean by "qualified" here, and I doubt
>anybody else does either. I think you mean 194 (or 181?).
194, right.
>In 194 "refugees" is "qualified" in a way that Israel likes to point too,
>anyways.
"Refugees" was not qualified in 194 for the simple reason that when
it was passed, the region was being inundated by Jewish refugees
from Europe and the Arab states.
>>>One can find a lot more that supports the Palestinian claim over
>>>the close to nonexistent Israeli one. Why don't you take a look
>>>at a PLO website?
>>I have. It's amusing, but hardly in the class of "Best
>>of Fantasy and SF".
>No, it is one side of debate, naturally the one that favors them.
It's more of their typical bullshit.
>Just as Israeli government websites present their side.
They have a case and don't have to rely on fantasy like the Pallies.
>Neither deserves the adjective "amusing."
>Anyone reasonable would look at them both, and wouldn't be surprised
>to see that there's good and less good material at both.
>A 2-state solution may not at all be the best one, but at least in
>principle it recognizes both peoples' rights.
The Pallies who have resorted to terrorism have lost their
rights.
>What is wrong with that? Aren't these human beings with human rights, in
>particular ones with a long record of their right to self-determination being
>recognized even though it has not been exercised?
Let the 93% of the Pallies who support Bin Laden and other terrorists
go to Bin Laden for their self-determination, and take the millionaire
terrorists of the PLO with them.
>Just what is your objection to these people having a (mini)state of
>their own?
A "(mini)state of their own" is not what they want.
>Do you think Israel is always 100% right?
No.
>Do you really think that Israel has a better moral and legal claim
>to the West Bank and Gaza? Why?
You are talking about a region that has been fought over for
thousands of years. I have no objections to the Pallies having
a state, so long as they prove they - as has been often stated -
wish to live in peace with their neighbors.
Jgarbuz
> "I.R." wrote:
> > No one is oppressing these Arab SQUATTERS.
> > Israel's land
>
> have been no need for the Zionist movement in 1896. The Zionist
> movement began because the Jews wanted to take the land from the
> Palestinians. Almost nobody in America (or Australia) knows anything
> about history.<
And if the land in America had really belonged to the Indians,
then the president's name would have been Sitting Bush.
The fact that there is no Indian president PROVES that America
never belonged to the Indians and that that is all a myth.
If fact, the white people in America didn't come here; they were
always here. Proof? WHere are the ships that brought them? Did they
disappear? Where are the remains of all of those ships?
That proves that it's a myth that white people came to America.
They were always here. Q.E.D.
Deborah Nyob
>>If the land in Palestine truly belonged to the Israelis, there would
>>have been no need for the Zionist movement in 1896.
Zionism was alive and well long before 1896.
>>The Zionist movement began because the Jews wanted to take the
>>land from the Palestinians.
In 1896, there were NO Palestinians.
>>Almost nobody in America (or Australia) knows anything
>>about history.<
This guy certainly doesn't.
Jgarbuz wrote:
>And if the land in America had really belonged to the Indians,
>then the president's name would have been Sitting Bush.
Heh. Good one, Jack.
>The fact that there is no Indian president PROVES that America
>never belonged to the Indians and that that is all a myth.
>If fact, the white people in America didn't come here; they were
>always here. Proof? WHere are the ships that brought them? Did they
>disappear? Where are the remains of all of those ships?
>That proves that it's a myth that white people came to America.
>They were always here. Q.E.D.
Even better.
Russil Wvong
> If even Begin disagrees . . , don't you think it might be?
Begin says there was no proof that Nasser was about to attack
immediately, but he does describe the 1967 war as a war of
self-defense. (He was trying to justify the 1982 invasion of
Lebanon by stressing its similarity with the 1967 war, so I
wouldn't put too much weight on his speech.)
> If Israel had allowed the Straits to remain closed, Nasser would have
> had his propaganda victory - he wouldn't have had to back down from
> his public statements and very probably nothing would have happened
> immediately. Why wouldn't Nasser want to quit while he was ahead
> against a nation whose armed forces he knew were superior?
I think I see what you're saying now. I'd said that Israel was about
to be attacked in 1967. You're saying that if Israel hadn't attacked,
Nasser would probably not have attacked immediately, despite his
having mobilized the Egyptian army, formed a military alliance with
Jordan and Iraq, and whipped up a war frenzy:
Damascus Radio told its listeners on May 23: "Arab masses, this
is your day. Rush to the battlefield.... Let them know that we
shall hang the last imperialist soldier with the entrails of the
last Zionist." The director of the Voice of the Arabs (Cairo),
Ahmed Said, chimed in, "The Zionist barracks in Palestine is about
to collapse and be destroyed.... Every ... Arab has been living
for the past 19 years on one hope--... to see the day Israel is
liquidated." The prime minister of Iraq spoke of a "rendezvous
with our brothers in Tel Aviv," and Shukeiry declared: "[There]
will be practically no Jewish survivors."
["Righteous Victims", Morris]
Hmm. I think we're speculating at this point. Certainly Nasser wasn't
planning an immediate attack at the time Israel launched the war
(actually, 'Amr ordered a pre-emptive attack, but it was countermanded
the next day by Nasser, probably because of Soviet pressure; see Morris).
But I'm not so sure that he would have been deterred by Israeli military
superiority, because it's pretty hard to tell which side is stronger
before a battle actually takes place, and of course the outcome of
the battle will be influenced by such intangible factors as motivation,
morale, and luck. Morris again:
[Nasser] appears to have believed--perhaps persuaded by 'Amr--that
his army could defeat or at least hold off the IDF; perhaps the war
fever of the Cairo crowds, reproduced in a dozen Arab capitals,
got the better of his judgment.
Plus there were the Syrian and Jordanian armies. If Nasser had believed
that Israel had clear military superiority, would he have closed the
Straits, knowing that Israel had previously warned it would consider
this an act of war?
At any rate, speculation aside, I think you're correct in saying that
we don't know whether Israel was about to be attacked, so my earlier
statement wasn't justified. Instead, I should have said that in 1967,
Israel was threatened with attack by its Arab neighbors, and decided to
attack first.
> I'm not trying to argue what should have been done or who was right
> or wrong ...
Fair enough. Morris's judgement, in a review of Avi Shlaim's "The Iron
Wall":
Most historians would say ... that it was Syria's repeated cries
of "wolf," Russia's lies about Israeli troop concentrations, and
Nasir's unprovoked, provocative, and unnecessary dispatch into
Sinai of his armored divisions and his subsequent closure of the
Straits of Tiran that were "the most important factors" in
propelling the region into war in June 1967.
[http://www.ipsjps.org/jps/116/br_morris.html]
> Everybody in the US military and every intelligence agency unanimously
> and confidently thought that there was no real contest at all, at least
> that's what I've read; it would be astonishing that people would be that
> definite about it if it weren't true. I'd be very surprised if you can
> find a source that says something different, that there was real doubt
> in the US.
You may be right; I'll take a look.
> The Israeli public did get very scared, and naturally enough
> the Israeli military had a bit more reason to be cautious in their
> estimates than the US.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Russil Wvong
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Certainly Morris is more sympathetic to the Palestinians than the
> >Israeli mainstream, but from what I can tell, he provides a
> >reasonable accounting of the facts --
>
> Actually, Morris doesn't. See:
> http://www.meforum.org/meq/march99/benny.shtml
> http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2000/03-31/features6.html
> http://www.memri.org/sd/SP31001.html
> http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-editor.html
I read through them. From the Azure editorial, it sounds as though
their main criticism of Morris isn't his treatment of the facts:
We can take as an instructive example the research done by Benny
Morris in Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Despite
occasional inaccuracies, Morris' account of the subject is more
detailed and accurate than anything that preceded it. If we
consider the facts Morris presents, it is reasonably clear that
the flight of much of the Arab population from the territory that
became Israel stemmed from battles between Arab and Jewish forces,
and from the fears of Arab civilians of getting caught in the
fighting. The Zionist leadership, Morris' research shows,
correctly understood the danger that the Palestinian Arabs posed
to the nascent Jewish state, and therefore did little to prevent
their departure, at times encouraging or even precipitating
it through political or military actions.
Rather, it's his moral perspective, which is highly critical of
the Zionist leadership:
No nation can retain its basic vitality if its entire historical
narrative comes to be seen in the public mind as a long series
of moral failings compounded by errors of judgment.
I think that's a fair criticism. But I think I should still be able
to use Morris as a source of historical information, provided that
I maintain some caution about accepting his moral judgements uncritically.
john z
Yes. Though I generally don't take war frenzy type statements, (as opposed to
real world actions and inter-state diplomacy) too seriously, no matter how
bloodthirsty and depraved they may be. On the other hand it's easy to see how
they may have led the Israeli public to legitimate fear and reaction, which just
goes to show how stupid such bellicosity is.
Yes, I agree, if we add the things that Israel did (and that Shlaim
overemphasizes IMHO) too. There was plenty of blame on all sides, however you
weigh who has more; this really was a war of foolishness and stupidity and each
side showing how tough they were. Shlaim's perspective is so focused on Israeli
actions that I think it is clear that he isn't even trying to talk about
non-Israeli actions. His book is then a critical review of Israeli foreign
policy rather than a complete history of the relations between the states in the
region.
zztop8970-
.
> Yes. Though I generally don't take war frenzy type statements, (as opposed to
> real world actions and inter-state diplomacy) too seriously, no matter how
> bloodthirsty and depraved they may be.
No. A more accurate description is that you don't take *Arab* war
frenzy type statements too seriously (after all, it's no skin off your
back should they turn out to be real). When it comes to Israeli war
frenzy type statements, you have no problem using them as the
foundation for your theory that Israel is always the aggressor in the
conflict. For example, you have no problem of using Ben Gurion's
pompous statements following the 1956 campaign as "proof" that Isarel
had planned to take territory away from Egypt.
besides, even if we were to take you at your word - there was enough
"real world actions and inter-state diplomacy" to make a very
convincing case for an emminent coordinated Arab attack - Egyption
forces had been mobilized and moved into the Sinai, mutual defence
pacts were signed with Jordan and Syrai, the UN "peace keeping" forces
were ordered out of the Sinai- and the Straits of Tiran were
blockaded.
john z
>john z <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<3huk4ugmrqct5ifgr...@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 Jan 2002 18:32:46 -0800, russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
><snip>
>.
>>
>> Yes. Though I generally don't take war frenzy type statements, (as opposed to
>> real world actions and inter-state diplomacy) too seriously, no matter how
>> bloodthirsty and depraved they may be.
>
>
>No. A more accurate description is that you don't take *Arab* war
>frenzy type statements too seriously (after all, it's no skin off your
>back should they turn out to be real).
Their reality depends on what happens on the ground and in the diplomatic arena.
Hot air is just hot air.
>When it comes to Israeli war
>frenzy type statements, you have no problem using them as the
>foundation for your theory that Israel is always the aggressor in the
>conflict.
I never said this or used them this way. If I say that Israel was the aggressor
in 1956, it is because the facts, the documents and everybody else nowadays say
so.
In 67, well, there were bellicose actions and statements from Israel, too, and I
think I have generally brought them up in response to someone using the Arabs'
"war frenzy type statements" as evidence of their actual malign plans.
All I am saying is that 67 is not a clear-cut case.
>For example, you have no problem of using Ben Gurion's
>pompous statements following the 1956 campaign as "proof" that Isarel
>had planned to take territory away from Egypt.
He made similar statements in the Protocol of Sevres and even more extreme ones
in his "fantastic plan" at that conference. Secret plans and statements to
high officials in other governments are the kind of things serious historians -
and myself also - take seriously. About these "pompous statements," he already
had the territory, so statements about it have to be taken seriously.
(Just as Egyptian ones should have been - had they already conquered Israel.)
>besides, even if we were to take you at your word - there was enough
>"real world actions and inter-state diplomacy" to make a very
>convincing case for an emminent coordinated Arab attack - Egyption
>forces had been mobilized and moved into the Sinai, mutual defence
>pacts were signed with Jordan and Syrai, the UN "peace keeping" forces
>were ordered out of the Sinai- and the Straits of Tiran were
>blockaded.
Well, I don't think that the weight of historical opinion agrees on this, one
certainly can't say it was sure. As I said before, if nothing happened, Nasser
would have had a victory. Why would he risk so much when he was already ahead?
Most of the time, when states do and say such aggressive things it turns out to
be just posturing.