If anyone would like a glimpse into the incredible oddity that is HHW aka iconoclast aka Cazador, read here

[drahcir]

On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On May 25, 5:23 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 7:49 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 3:09 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 24, 2:57 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 24, 6:39 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
> > > > > > and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
> > > > > > doesn't merit a response.
>
> > > > > Whatever post that may be. Since H snipped it, being obviously afraid
> > > > > of it, one can't tell.
>
> > > > > It's amusing to note H batting his usual .00001. Benny Morris, a neo-
> > > > > Zionist? He's written about neo-Zionism, certainly, as have Anita
> > > > > Shapira, Uri Ram, and others. Nobody except the brilliant Herr Watson,
> > > > > though, has thought to daub Morris as a neo-Zionist.
>
> > > > > Deborah
>
> > > > You actually think he knows what neo-Zionism is? He read the term on
> > > > some website. His branding Morris as such is par for the course.
> > > > Whenever I think he's lost it and can't sink any further, he surprises
> > > > me.
>
> > > It was my phrase.
>
> > Liar.
>
> > Neo-Zionism
> > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> > Neo-Zionism emerged in the 1970s.[2] It is mainly constituted of
> > settlers and members of the "national camp" in Israel. It is
> > politically represented by the National Religious Party and the Likud
> > and other small parties such as Tehiya, Tzomet and Moledet.[2]
>
> > >I don't recall ever having seen it before.
>
> > Another load of balls.
>
> > >All I
> > >mean by it is that after taking a lot of heat from inside Israel,
> > >Morris has personally turned to the right.
>
> > Crap.
>
> > > Shlaim explains it. Morris is definitely a "New Historian".
>
> > Imagine that.
>
> > Deborah
>
> Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional
> Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me. You
> even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."
> Once you learned that he was the leader and progenitor of the new
> historians one heard nothing more from you about him though I did
> remind you on occasion that you love him.

OK, folks, this is for those of you who may still harbor a milligram
of respect for HHW. As most know, HHW has crafted his posts involving
Benny Morris to strongly imply that he has read Morris's books.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is
reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of
his heroes, although it was crystal clear he had never heard of
Hilberg before my mention. Now above we have him pontificating about
Benny Morris. To put this into perspective, read below, from a
discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":

*****
> He [Pappe] describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
> years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
> through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government
> documents. How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
> Benny Morris?

LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?
Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
"Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/3f10933c01c2b20b
*****

Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
"Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?
A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth
about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
inhibited our village idiot. Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong - I am fairly certain that
the first major author classified as a New Historian is Simha Flapan.
Of course, HHW has never heard of Flapan before this very moment, but
in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.

Then you took to denying you
> ever said it because Google's search engine will no longer bring it
> up. You're a bad girl, Debbie.

[coaste...@yahoo.com]

On May 27, 10:32 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

Cliip debris.

Note: I will clip nothing more of Ratner's maiden post which is very
valuable to the actual discussion.

The quote below from the introduction to the Ari Shavit interview of
Morris. I posted the interview several times in the thread Ratner was
posting to until he started this one. It is probable he wished to
escape this interview.

"Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when
they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical
study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to
undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's
completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They
didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality,
with which it was written. So they came to the mistaken conclusion
that when Morris describes the cruelest deeds that the Zionist
movement perpetrated in 1948 he is actually being condemnatory, that
when he describes the large-scale expulsion operations he is being
denunciatory. They did not conceive that the great documenter of the
sins of Zionism in fact IDENTIFIES WITH THOSE SINS. That he thinks
some of them, at least, were unavoidable. (Emphasis by HHW)

"Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when
they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical
study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to
undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's
completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They
didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality,
with which it was written. So they came to the mistaken conclusion
that when Morris describes the cruelest deeds that the Zionist
movement perpetrated in 1948 he is actually being condemnatory, that
when he describes the large-scale expulsion operations he is being
denunciatory. They did not conceive that the great documenter of the
sins of Zionism in fact identifies with those sins. That he thinks
some of them, at least, were unavoidable."

HHW:

Morris' parents were Marxists. He was born on a communal farm in
Israel. He refused to serve in a call-up of his reserve unit and spent
three weeks in prison as a matter of principle. That could hardly have
been Zionist principle. He obtained his PhD from Cambridge, not
exactly an intellectual atmosphere conducive to the excesses of
rightist political ideologies such as Zionism. Thereafter he wrote his
first book which was a ground breaking expose of the Israeli crimes of
1948, not the choice of subject one would expect from an ardent
Zionist, even if one might expect it from an ambitious young
historian. It's the one I read precisely because it was an
international bombshell and related to the vexing problems we
Americans were having with Israel. After being blacklisted in Israel,
he made some sort of promise to the President or Prime minister,
whichever, and was given an academic post. His career in Israel was
saved, but at what cost?

In recent years at the personal level at least Morris has turned hard
right. Today he is an unapologetic supporter of Israel's history of
ethnic cleansing. He is an informal Public Defender against the
critics of Israeli policy and history. He is hostile to the
Palestinians. Accordingly it is fair enough that I call him today a
neo-Zionist, just as his analogues in the United States, who were
leftists, even Trotskyists, are now "neoconservatives." He saved his
career in Israel where men who couldn't make those compromises at the
intellectual level were driven from the country. A prime example is
Ilan Pappe. I suspect the same was true of Avi Shlaim but haven't
researched it.

>
> > > > > > Whatever post that may be. Since H snipped it, being obviously afraid
> > > > > > of it, one can't tell.

It was your post, wasn't it? And it contained your usual filth, didn't
it? So you have everything you need to know regarding what post it was
and why clippage was applied. I'm fully justified in clipping every
post you write as they are all filled with ad hominem slurs. It hasn't
occurred to you that you gave me this right. You never understood the
law of unanticipated consequences. When you reject the basic rules of
gentlemanly discourse, Ratner, you pay a price and can't expect me to
fail to exact it.

> > > > > > It's amusing to note H batting his usual .00001. Benny Morris, a neo-
> > > > > > Zionist? He's written about neo-Zionism, certainly, as have Anita
> > > > > > Shapira, Uri Ram, and others. Nobody except the brilliant Herr Watson,
> > > > > > though, has thought to daub Morris as a neo-Zionist.

Bad girl, Debbie. Anything to distract. And why not? Tell us about
Wiki on neo-Zionism. Don't cheat now.

> > > > > > Deborah
>
> > > > > You actually think he knows what neo-Zionism is? He read the term on
> > > > > some website. His branding Morris as such is par for the course.
> > > > > Whenever I think he's lost it and can't sink any further, he surprises
> > > > > me.
>
> > > > It was my phrase.

In fact, I did not know there was already a gloss on the phrase and I
still don't know whether given that fact there was ever any real
conflict. It's not worth my time. Perhaps the magisterial mystic
Debbie will explain it.

>
> > > Liar.
>
> > > Neo-Zionism
> > > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> > > Neo-Zionism emerged in the 1970s.[2] It is mainly constituted of
> > > settlers and members of the "national camp" in Israel. It is
> > > politically represented by the National Religious Party and the Likud
> > > and other small parties such as Tehiya, Tzomet and Moledet.[2]

Haha, I used it to describe a man who had turned to the right. It
looks as though I was pretty close.

>
> > > >I don't recall ever having seen it before.
>
> > > Another load of balls.

Get it together, Deb. It doesn't help you to assert that I am all-
knowing.

>
> > > >All I
> > > >mean by it is that after taking a lot of heat from inside Israel,
> > > >Morris has personally turned to the right.
>
> > > Crap.

See above, Deb.

>
> > > > Shlaim explains it. Morris is definitely a "New Historian".
>
> > > Imagine that.
>
> > > Deborah
>
> > "Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional
> > Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me. You
> > even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."
> > Once you learned that he was the leader and progenitor of the new
> > historians one heard nothing more from you about him though I did
> > remind you on occasion that you love him.
>
> OK, folks, this is for those of you who may still harbor a milligram
> of respect for HHW. As most know, HHW has crafted his posts involving
> Benny Morris to strongly imply that he has read Morris's books.

See above. Everyone read his blockbuster about the Palestinian refugee
problem, Ratner. It caused an international brouhaha. It represented
the fatal breach in the curtain of bullshit which had been wrapped
around Israeli history. No little Dutch boy could put his finger in
that dike. I haven't been the same since. It resulted in what you see
here today in thousands of us. Perhaps you feared that would happen to
YOU? It's dated now, but Pappe brought it up to date a few years ago
in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and I understand that Morris has
"revistied" it and doubled its size, this time compiling the
definitive list of rapes and massacres perpetrated in the process,
exceeding Pappe's compilation. As Deb loves Benny Morris, she can no
longer speak of "Pappe's Crappe" when confronted with those facts.

> Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is
> reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
> mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of
> his heroes,

He is something of a hero, though I based that on what is said *about*
him as a scholar and a man of consummate integrity, not from reading
his massive two volume study of the Holocaust. I'm not destined to di
that. It's not germane to anything I'm interested in. I'm not going to
re-read The Forty Days of Musa Dagh either.

although it was crystal clear he had never heard of
> Hilberg before my mention.

Don't pump yourself up. I heard about Hilberg from the redoubtable
Norman Finkelstein. And that was long before you and I had that
conversation about him in which you got so hot about the fact that I
favored Hilberg's figure on Jewish Holocaust dead. You decided that it
was anti-Semitic for me to favor the conclusion of the most famed and
respected Jewish Holocaust scholar.

Now above we have him pontificating about
> Benny Morris.

No Pontiff I, Ratner. But I have learned quite a bit about Morris.
Haven't you? Surely so, eh? But then perhaps that's not included in
the job description of resident Zionist slime monger.

To put this into perspective, read below, from a
> discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
> coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
> you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":

Precisely so. She obviously did. That is easily deduced from the fact
that she was praising him and on one occasion even said, "Don't ya
just love Benny Morris?" Her mistake was that she thought Morris was a
defender of the old historiography, the only kind she has any record
of supporting. She had apparently picked up Morris' recent apologetics
for ethnic cleansing without understanding that he was the man who
originally exposed it and is currently finishing a fine career by
embellishing his earlier exposes. Before going below, recall who Deb
is, a right wing racist, an equal opportunity racist having multiple
targets, and a deeply conflicted Zionist-American who doesn't give a
damn about her mother country if Israel is involved. She sees anti-
Semites under every bed and is, barring you, the most filthy
defamation artist on these groups. She and I go back as far as you and
I do. I know her as well as I know you. And that's full well enough
for this work.

>
> *****

Speaking of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, I said:

> > He [Pappe] describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
> > years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
> > through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government
> > documents.

Note that Ratner does not respond to this damningly substantive
comment on Pappe's book. Instead he latches onto this:

How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
> > Benny Morris?
>
> LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?
> Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
> "Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
> idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.

But he is now the establishment court historian irrespective of what
he writes:

P. 1: Israel is a Zionist, Jewish State.

P. 2: As the vehicle Zionists utilized massive ethnic cleansing to
create the Jewish State.

P. 3: Professor Benny Morris, an historian, defends and justifies
ethnic cleansing, saying that Ben-Gurion was a "transferist" i.e., an
ethnic cleanser, and that it's regrettable he did not go the "whole
hog")

P. 4. Professor Morris has become an informal spokesman for the
Israeli establishment which has a vested interest in the defense of
ethnic cleansing.

THEREFORE, Morris is the Establishment's Historian in the sense that
he uses his fame as a scholar as the platform to defend the Israeli
Zionist establishment. What more could they want? Here's a man who
knows everything there is to know about what happened in 1948 and has
nary a bad thing to say about Zionism or ethnic cleansing, a man who
even thinks it may have been legal. Yes he's the establishment's
historian in spades. And an anti-Palestinian racist to boot. This will
all be shown below.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/3f10933c01c2b20b
> *****
>
> Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
> "Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
> someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?

Ha, you are forgetting the exchange with Deb in which I was the one
who knew Benny Morris and that was something like two years ago. Today
Morris is closely linked to the establishment, justifies ethnic
cleansing to the international public on behalf of the establishment
and is an historian. He is the establishment's historian-defender.
That what he has written in his histories about facts from the
archives of 1948 is objectively true is off the subject. Historians
are forbidden to lie and of course he does not when he writes
professionally. It's what he is doing today to support Israeli
policies and the right wing government which makes him the
government's historian. He doesn't lie when he writes, but he's their
man so far as his personal opinions are conderned. He justifies the
ethnic cleansing what can no longer be hidden.

The exchanges between Shavit and Benny Morris are posted here as
context for what I say above:

Rape, massacre, transfer

Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the
birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who
will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many
documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original
book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the
new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of
massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were
also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the
Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the
IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they
were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages
themselves.

"At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders
issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian
intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the
villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation
against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that
many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of
the Palestinian leadership itself."

According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were
there in 1948?

"About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her
and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one
girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the
Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two
cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape
at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha,
near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female
prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were
other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there
were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases
the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the
rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen
cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole
story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were
perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in
others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of
arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they
are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot.
There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron
region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing
and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110),
Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is
no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war
crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about
which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi,
in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of
Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha,
Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In
Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions
of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers
who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order
they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage
the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was
punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He
covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in
Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion
order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948,
the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in
writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population.
Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the
Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this
order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the
city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately
after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July
1948]."

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a
deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer.
There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly
comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population]
transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership
understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what
is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is
created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there
could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would
not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to
evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state
would not have arisen here."

When ethnic cleansing is justified

Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of
Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do
you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of
1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification
for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions,
expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of
1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
You have to dirty your hands."

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the
destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the
choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to
destroy."

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I will not do that."

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and
observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled
from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify
them?

"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't
think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't
have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have
won the war and the state would not have come into being."

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I
know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the
21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and
genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic
cleansing."

And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state
would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000
Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no
choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the
hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It
was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our
settlements were fired on."

The term `to cleanse' is terrible.

"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the
time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am
immersed."

What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound
hard-hearted.

"I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a
hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the
desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no
other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the
country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in
Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab
states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population.
To uproot it in the course of war.

"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the
planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it
conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during
many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish
people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world
why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view,
the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice
that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."

And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

"That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have
been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases
in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that
are committed in the course of history."

And in our case it effectively justifies a population transfer.

"That's what emerges."

And you take that in stride? War crimes? Massacres? The burning fields
and the devastated villages of the Nakba?

"You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All
told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we
come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that
were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the
massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad,
that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a
bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the
population, you find that we behaved very well."

The next transfer

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-
Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you
actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they
were in their deeds.

"You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was
forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped
with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they
faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do
not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical
mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and
the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he
got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in
expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a
complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and
the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would
be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved
once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and
cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the
Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If
he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he
would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it
will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948.
Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West
Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the
country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an
historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-
completion of the transfer was a mistake."

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of
the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and
the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a
partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral
nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not
allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am
ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which
are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions.
If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a
general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with
Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts
of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete
Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among
us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and
security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if
Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in
1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by
Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and
chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same
time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an
expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is
existential, expulsion will be justified."

Cultural dementia

Besides being tough, you are also very gloomy. You weren't always like
that, were you?

"My turning point began after 2000. I wasn't a great optimist even
before that. True, I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli [a dovish
party of the late 1970s], and in 1988 I refused to serve in the
territories and was jailed for it, but I always doubted the intentions
of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in
their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians
rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and
the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are
unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and
Acre and Jaffa."

If that's so, then the whole Oslo process was mistaken and there is a
basic flaw in the entire worldview of the Israeli peace movement.

"Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the
Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader
Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded
us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and
conciliation."

Do you really believe Arafat wants to throw us into the sea?

"He wants to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. He truly
sees us as a Crusader state and he thinks about the Crusader precedent
and wishes us a Crusader end. I'm certain that Israeli intelligence
has unequivocal information proving that in internal conversations
Arafat talks seriously about the phased plan [which would eliminate
Israel in stages]. But the problem is not just Arafat. The entire
Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is
driven by the phased plan. That's why the Palestinians are not
honestly ready to forgo the right of return. They are preserving it as
an instrument with which they will destroy the Jewish state when the
time comes. They can't tolerate the existence of a Jewish state - not
in 80 percent of the country and not in 30 percent. From their point
of view, the Palestinian state must cover the whole Land of Israel."

If so, the two-state solution is not viable; even if a peace treaty is
signed, it will soon collapse.

"Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It's the only
alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the
Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this
generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30
to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent
of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short
break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume."

Your prognosis doesn't leave much room for hope, does it?

"It's hard for me, too. There is not going to be peace in the present
generation. There will not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the
sword. I'm already fairly old, but for my children that is especially
bleak. I don't know if they will want to go on living in a place where
there is no hope. Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won't see a
good, normal life here in the decades ahead."

Aren't your harsh words an over-reaction to three hard years of
terrorism?

"The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made
me understand the depth of the hatred for us. They made me understand
that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jewish
existence here is taking us to the brink of destruction. I don't see
the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of
the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians
want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."

Yet we, too, bear responsibility for the violence and the hatred: the
occupation, the roadblocks, the closures, maybe even the Nakba itself.

"You don't have to tell me that. I have researched Palestinian
history. I understand the reasons for the hatred very well. The
Palestinians are retaliating now not only for yesterday's closure but
for the Nakba as well. But that is not a sufficient explanation. The
peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than
the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don't see
African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far
more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren't blowing up
buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here,
something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture."

Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some
sort of deep cultural problem?

"There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose values are
different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as
it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and
creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the
camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays
a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we
are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral
inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons,
it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide."

I want to insist on my point: A large part of the responsibility for
the hatred of the Palestinians rests with us. After all, you yourself
showed us that the Palestinians experienced a historical catastrophe.

"True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so
important to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important
is to imprison the murderer or to execute him."

Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?

"The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian
society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the
Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in
the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It
should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial
killers."

What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?

"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the
establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process.
But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be
contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."

To fence them in? To place them under closure?

"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds
terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild
animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

War of barbarians

Benny Morris, have you joined the right wing?

"No, no. I still think of myself as left-wing. I still support in
principle two states for two peoples."

But you don't believe that this solution will last. You don't believe
in peace.

"In my opinion, we will not have peace, no."

Then what is your solution?

"In this generation there is apparently no solution. To be vigilant,
to defend the country as far as is possible."

The iron wall approach?

"Yes. An iron wall is a good image. An iron wall is the most
reasonable policy for the coming generation. My colleague Avi Shlein
described this well: What Jabotinsky proposed is what Ben-Gurion
adopted. In the 1950s, there was a dispute between Ben-Gurion and
Moshe Sharett. Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force
and that ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to
accept our presence here. He was right. That's not to say that we
don't need diplomacy. Both toward the West and for our own conscience,
it's important that we strive for a political solution. But in the
end, what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force
alone. Only the recognition that they are not capable of defeating
us."

For a left-winger, you sound very much like a right-winger, wouldn't
you say?

"I'm trying to be realistic. I know it doesn't always sound
politically correct, but I think that political correctness poisons
history in any case. It impedes our ability to see the truth. And I
also identify with Albert Camus. He was considered a left-winger and a
person of high morals, but when he referred to the Algerian problem he
placed his mother ahead of morality. Preserving my people is more
important than universal moral concepts."

Are you a neo-conservative? Do you read the current historical reality
in the terms of Samuel Huntington?

"I think there is a clash between civilizations here [as Huntington
argues]. I think the West today resembles the Roman Empire of the
fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: The barbarians are attacking it and
they may also destroy it."

The Muslims are barbarians, then?

"I think the values I mentioned earlier are values of barbarians - the
attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the attitude toward
human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The Arab world as it is
today is barbarian."

And in your view these new barbarians are truly threatening the Rome
of our time?

"Yes. The West is stronger but it's not clear whether it knows how to
repulse this wave of hatred. The phenomenon of the mass Muslim
penetration into the West and their settlement there is creating a
dangerous internal threat. A similar process took place in Rome. They
let the barbarians in and they toppled the empire from within."

Is it really all that dramatic? Is the West truly in danger?

"Yes. I think that the war between the civilizations is the main
characteristic of the 21st century. I think President Bush is wrong
when he denies the very existence of that war. It's not only a matter
of bin Laden. This is a struggle against a whole world that espouses
different values. And we are on the front line. Exactly like the
Crusaders, we are the vulnerable branch of Europe in this place."

The situation as you describe it is extremely harsh. You are not
entirely convinced that we can survive here, are you?

"The possibility of annihilation exists."

Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?

"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile
surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It
wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable
for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed
now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is
miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on
what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible.
Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."

If Zionism is so dangerous for the Jews and if Zionism makes the Arabs
so wretched, maybe it's a mistake?

"No, Zionism was not a mistake. The desire to establish a Jewish state
here was a legitimate one, a positive one. But given the character of
Islam and given the character of the Arab nation, it was a mistake to
think that it would be possible to establish a tranquil state here
that lives in harmony with its surroundings."

Which leaves us, nevertheless, with two possibilities: either a cruel,
tragic Zionism, or the forgoing of Zionism.

"Yes. That's so. You have pared it down, but that's correct."

Would you agree that this historical reality is intolerable, that
there is something inhuman about it?

"Yes. But that's so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A
people that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust,
arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of
bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of
cosmic justice, that's terrible. It's far more shocking than what
happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in
Palestine."

So what you are telling me is that you live the Palestinian Nakba of
the past less than you live the possible Jewish Nakba of the future?

"Yes. Destruction could be the end of this process. It could be the
end of the Zionist experiment. And that's what really depresses and
scares me."

> A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth
> about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
> inhibited our village idiot. Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
> that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
> coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
> ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
> Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong - I am fairly certain that
> the first major author classified as a New Historian is Simha Flapan.

Flapan had a much lower profile both inside and outside of Israel than
does Morris. Let them share the honor if you wish. Morris was
considered their "leader" in the early days. He is certainly a
progenitor of the movement. You don't need to pick nits on this.
Especially when you are only "fairly certain" of something.

> Of course, HHW has never heard of Flapan before this very moment,

Establishing facts on the ground are you Ratner?

but
> in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
> Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
> his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
> distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.

Tell us about Simcha Flapan, Ratner. That would be a boon for all of
us. Yes, please tell us about him. I'm beginning to sense a new field
of endeavor is opening up for me. First I'll look for articles on the
web, eh?

> > Then you took to denying you
> > ever said it because Google's search engine will no longer bring it
> > up. You're a bad girl, Debbie.

Yes, a bad, bad girl, Debbie.

000000000000000000000000000000000

Historian Benny Morris: Was Mistake Not To Complete Transfer in '48

Survival of the Fittest (an interview with Historian Benny Morris)
By Ari Shavit Haaretz, Magazine Section, 9 January 2004

Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when
they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical
study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to
undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's
completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They
didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality,
with which it was written. So they came to the mistaken conclusion
that when Morris describes the cruelest deeds that the Zionist
movement perpetrated in 1948 he is actually being condemnatory, that
when he describes the large-scale expulsion operations he is being
denunciatory. They did not conceive that the great documenter of the
sins of Zionism in fact identifies with those sins. That he thinks
some of them, at least, were unavoidable.

Two years ago, different voices began to be heard. The historian who
was considered a radical leftist suddenly maintained that Israel had
no one to talk to. The researcher who was accused of being an Israel
hater (and was boycotted by the Israeli academic establishment) began
to publish articles in favor of Israel in the British paper The
Guardian.

Whereas citizen Morris turned out to be a not completely snow-white
dove, historian Morris continued to work on the Hebrew translation of
his massive work "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab
Conflict, 1881-2001," which was written in the old, peace-pursuing
style. And at the same time historian Morris completed the new version
of his book on the refugee problem, which is going to strengthen the
hands of those who abominate Israel. So that in the past two years
citizen Morris and historian Morris worked as though there is no
connection between them, as though one was trying to save what the
other insists on eradicating.

Both books will appear in the coming month. The book on the history of
the Zionist-Arab conflict will be published in Hebrew by Am Oved in
Tel Aviv, while the Cambridge University Press will publish "The Birth
of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" (it originally appeared,
under the CUP imprint, in 1987). That book describes in chilling
detail the atrocities of the Nakba. Isn't Morris ever frightened at
the present-day political implications of his historical study? Isn't
he fearful that he has contributed to Israel becoming almost a pariah
state? After a few moments of evasion, Morris admits that he is.
Sometimes he really is frightened. Sometimes he asks himself what he
has wrought.

He is short, plump, and very intense. The son of immigrants from
England, he was born in Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh and was a member of the
left-wing Hashomer Hatza'ir youth movement. In the past, he was a
reporter for the Jerusalem Post and refused to do military service in
the territories. He is now a professor of history at Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva. But sitting in his armchair in
his Jerusalem apartment, he does not don the mantle of the cautious
academic. Far from it: Morris spews out his words, rapidly and
energetically, sometimes spilling over into English. He doesn't think
twice before firing off the sharpest, most shocking statements, which
are anything but politically correct. He describes horrific war crimes
offhandedly, paints apocalyptic visions with a smile on his lips. He
gives the observer the feeling that this agitated individual, who with
his own hands opened the Zionist Pandora's box, is still having
difficulty coping with what he found in it, still finding it hard to
deal with the internal contradictions that are his lot and the lot of
us all.

Rape, massacre, transfer

Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the
birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who
will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many
documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original
book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the
new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of
massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were
also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the
Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the
IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they
were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages
themselves.

"At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders
issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian
intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the
villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation
against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that
many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of
the Palestinian leadership itself."

According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were
there in 1948?

"About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her
and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one
girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the
Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two
cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape
at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha,
near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female
prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were
other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there
were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases
the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the
rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen
cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole
story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were
perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in
others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of
arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they
are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot.
There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron
region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing
and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110),
Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is
no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war
crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about
which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi,
in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of
Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha,
Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In
Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions
of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers
who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order
they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage
the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was
punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He
covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in
Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion
order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948,
the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in
writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population.
Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the
Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this
order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the
city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately
after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July
1948]."

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a
deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer.
There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly
comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population]
transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership
understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what
is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is
created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there
could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would
not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to
evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state
would not have arisen here."

When ethnic cleansing is justified

Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of
Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do
you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of
1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification
for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions,
expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of
1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
You have to dirty your hands."

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the
destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the
choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to
destroy."

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I will not do that."

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and
observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled
from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify
them?

"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't
think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't
have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have
won the war and the state would not have come into being."

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I
know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the
21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and
genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic
cleansing."

And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state
would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000
Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no
choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the
hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It
was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our
settlements were fired on."

The term `to cleanse' is terrible.

"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the
time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am
immersed."

What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound
hard-hearted.

"I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a
hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the
desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no
other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the
country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in
Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab
states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population.
To uproot it in the course of war.

"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the
planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it
conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during
many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish
people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world
why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view,
the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice
that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."

And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

"That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have
been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases
in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that
are committed in the course of history."

And in our case it effectively justifies a population transfer.

"That's what emerges."

And you take that in stride? War crimes? Massacres? The burning fields
and the devastated villages of the Nakba?

"You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All
told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we
come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that
were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the
massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad,
that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a
bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the
population, you find that we behaved very well."

The next transfer

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-
Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you
actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they
were in their deeds.

"You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was
forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped
with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they
faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do
not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical
mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and
the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he
got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in
expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a
complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and
the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would
be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved
once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and
cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the
Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If
he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he
would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it
will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948.
Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West
Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the
country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an
historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-
completion of the transfer was a mistake."

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of
the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and
the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a
partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral
nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not
allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am
ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which
are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions.
If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a
general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with
Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts
of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete
Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among
us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and
security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if
Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in
1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by
Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and
chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same
time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an
expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is
existential, expulsion will be justified."

Cultural dementia

Besides being tough, you are also very gloomy. You weren't always like
that, were you?

"My turning point began after 2000. I wasn't a great optimist even
before that. True, I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli [a dovish
party of the late 1970s], and in 1988 I refused to serve in the
territories and was jailed for it, but I always doubted the intentions
of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in
their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians
rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and
the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are
unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and
Acre and Jaffa."

If that's so, then the whole Oslo process was mistaken and there is a
basic flaw in the entire worldview of the Israeli peace movement.

"Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the
Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader
Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded
us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and
conciliation."

Do you really believe Arafat wants to throw us into the sea?

"He wants to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. He truly
sees us as a Crusader state and he thinks about the Crusader precedent
and wishes us a Crusader end. I'm certain that Israeli intelligence
has unequivocal information proving that in internal conversations
Arafat talks seriously about the phased plan [which would eliminate
Israel in stages]. But the problem is not just Arafat. The entire
Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is
driven by the phased plan. That's why the Palestinians are not
honestly ready to forgo the right of return. They are preserving it as
an instrument with which they will destroy the Jewish state when the
time comes. They can't tolerate the existence of a Jewish state - not
in 80 percent of the country and not in 30 percent. From their point
of view, the Palestinian state must cover the whole Land of Israel."

If so, the two-state solution is not viable; even if a peace treaty is
signed, it will soon collapse.

"Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It's the only
alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the
Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this
generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30
to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent
of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short
break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume."

Your prognosis doesn't leave much room for hope, does it?

"It's hard for me, too. There is not going to be peace in the present
generation. There will not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the
sword. I'm already fairly old, but for my children that is especially
bleak. I don't know if they will want to go on living in a place where
there is no hope. Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won't see a
good, normal life here in the decades ahead."

Aren't your harsh words an over-reaction to three hard years of
terrorism?

"The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made
me understand the depth of the hatred for us. They made me understand
that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jewish
existence here is taking us to the brink of destruction. I don't see
the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of
the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians
want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."

Yet we, too, bear responsibility for the violence and the hatred: the
occupation, the roadblocks, the closures, maybe even the Nakba itself.

"You don't have to tell me that. I have researched Palestinian
history. I understand the reasons for the hatred very well. The
Palestinians are retaliating now not only for yesterday's closure but
for the Nakba as well. But that is not a sufficient explanation. The
peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than
the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don't see
African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far
more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren't blowing up
buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here,
something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture."

Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some
sort of deep cultural problem?

"There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose values are
different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as
it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and
creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the
camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays
a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we
are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral
inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons,
it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide."

I want to insist on my point: A large part of the responsibility for
the hatred of the Palestinians rests with us. After all, you yourself
showed us that the Palestinians experienced a historical catastrophe.

"True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so
important to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important
is to imprison the murderer or to execute him."

Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?

"The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian
society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the
Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in
the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It
should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial
killers."

What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?

"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the
establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process.
But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be
contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."

To fence them in? To place them under closure?

"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds
terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild
animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

War of barbarians

Benny Morris, have you joined the right wing?

"No, no. I still think of myself as left-wing. I still support in
principle two states for two peoples."

But you don't believe that this solution will last. You don't believe
in peace.

"In my opinion, we will not have peace, no."

Then what is your solution?

"In this generation there is apparently no solution. To be vigilant,
to defend the country as far as is possible."

The iron wall approach?

"Yes. An iron wall is a good image. An iron wall is the most
reasonable policy for the coming generation. My colleague Avi Shlein
described this well: What Jabotinsky proposed is what Ben-Gurion
adopted. In the 1950s, there was a dispute between Ben-Gurion and
Moshe Sharett. Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force
and that ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to
accept our presence here. He was right. That's not to say that we
don't need diplomacy. Both toward the West and for our own conscience,
it's important that we strive for a political solution. But in the
end, what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force
alone. Only the recognition that they are not capable of defeating
us."

For a left-winger, you sound very much like a right-winger, wouldn't
you say?

"I'm trying to be realistic. I know it doesn't always sound
politically correct, but I think that political correctness poisons
history in any case. It impedes our ability to see the truth. And I
also identify with Albert Camus. He was considered a left-winger and a
person of high morals, but when he referred to the Algerian problem he
placed his mother ahead of morality. Preserving my people is more
important than universal moral concepts."

Are you a neo-conservative? Do you read the current historical reality
in the terms of Samuel Huntington?

"I think there is a clash between civilizations here [as Huntington
argues]. I think the West today resembles the Roman Empire of the
fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: The barbarians are attacking it and
they may also destroy it."

The Muslims are barbarians, then?

"I think the values I mentioned earlier are values of barbarians - the
attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the attitude toward
human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The Arab world as it is
today is barbarian."

And in your view these new barbarians are truly threatening the Rome
of our time?

"Yes. The West is stronger but it's not clear whether it knows how to
repulse this wave of hatred. The phenomenon of the mass Muslim
penetration into the West and their settlement there is creating a
dangerous internal threat. A similar process took place in Rome. They
let the barbarians in and they toppled the empire from within."

Is it really all that dramatic? Is the West truly in danger?

"Yes. I think that the war between the civilizations is the main
characteristic of the 21st century. I think President Bush is wrong
when he denies the very existence of that war. It's not only a matter
of bin Laden. This is a struggle against a whole world that espouses
different values. And we are on the front line. Exactly like the
Crusaders, we are the vulnerable branch of Europe in this place."

The situation as you describe it is extremely harsh. You are not
entirely convinced that we can survive here, are you?

"The possibility of annihilation exists."

Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?

"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile
surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It
wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable
for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed
now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is
miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on
what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible.
Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."

If Zionism is so dangerous for the Jews and if Zionism makes the Arabs
so wretched, maybe it's a mistake?

"No, Zionism was not a mistake. The desire to establish a Jewish state
here was a legitimate one, a positive one. But given the character of
Islam and given the character of the Arab nation, it was a mistake to
think that it would be possible to establish a tranquil state here
that lives in harmony with its surroundings."

Which leaves us, nevertheless, with two possibilities: either a cruel,
tragic Zionism, or the forgoing of Zionism.

"Yes. That's so. You have pared it down, but that's correct."

Would you agree that this historical reality is intolerable, that
there is something inhuman about it?

"Yes. But that's so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A
people that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust,
arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of
bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of
cosmic justice, that's terrible. It's far more shocking than what
happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in
Palestine."

So what you are telling me is that you live the Palestinian Nakba of
the past less than you live the possible Jewish Nakba of the future?

"Yes. Destruction could be the end of this process. It could be the
end of the Zionist experiment. And that's what really depresses and
scares me."

00000000000000000000000-----------------

[drahcir]

On May 27, 6:33 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On May 27, 10:32 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Cliip debris.

"Clipping" is your only refuge, H. That's clear to all.

>
> Note: I will clip nothing more of Ratner's maiden post which is very
> valuable to the actual discussion.
>
> The quote below from the introduction to the Ari Shavit interview of
> Morris. I posted the interview several times in the thread Ratner was
> posting to until he started this one. It is probable he wished to
> escape this interview.

LOL! H is so completely deluded he thinks it escapes someone that the
entire purpose of pasting the below crap about Morris from the web is
to pretend to be replying to a post he's really afraid to reply to.
I'll simply reinsert my post, with the valid, simple issue about his
idiocy, here again. It starts with H pontificating to Deb about
Morris:

> Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional
> Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me. You
> even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."
> Once you learned that he was the leader and progenitor of the new
> historians one heard nothing more from you about him though I did
> remind you on occasion that you love him.

OK, folks, this is for those of you who may still harbor a milligram
of respect for HHW. As most know, HHW has crafted his posts involving
Benny Morris to strongly imply that he has read Morris's books.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is
reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of

his heroes, although it was crystal clear he had never heard of
Hilberg before my mention. Now above we have him pontificating about
Benny Morris. To put this into perspective, read below, from a

discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":

*****

> He [Pappe] describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
> years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
> through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government

> documents. How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
> Benny Morris?

LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?
Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
"Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/3f10933c01c2b20b
*****

Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
"Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?

A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth
about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
inhibited our village idiot. Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong - I am fairly certain that
the first major author classified as a New Historian is Simha Flapan.

Of course, HHW has never heard of Flapan before this very moment, but

in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.

No need to "clip" irrelevant HHWBabble below. Inundation is simply
another of the coward HHW's ways to attempt to appear to be replying
when in fact avoiding.

> damn about her mother country if ...
>
> read more »

[Alistair]

How often are you advised to seek psychiatric counselling?

"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6e8715e-1672-4868...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

[coaste...@yahoo.com]

On May 27, 10:32 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

I post this reply again because I didn't recognize it in Ratner's
response AND because the original had been truncated. Readers, please
go through to the end. Ratner doesn't want you to read this.

Cliip debris from previous posts of no substantive connection to the
thread.

Note: I will clip nothing more of Ratner's maiden post which is very
valuable to the actual discussion.

> > > > > > wrote:

>
> > > > > > > Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
> > > > > > > and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
> > > > > > > doesn't merit a response.

The quote below from the introduction to the Ari Shavit interview of

Morris. I posted the interview several times in the thread Ratner was
posting to until he started this one. It is probable he wished to
escape this interview.

"Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when

HHW:

>

> > > > > > Whatever post that may be. Since H snipped it, being obviously afraid
> > > > > > of it, one can't tell.

It was your post, wasn't it? And it contained your usual filth, didn't

it? So you have everything you need to know regarding what post it was
and why clippage was applied. I'm fully justified in clipping every
post you write as they are all filled with ad hominem slurs. It hasn't
occurred to you that you gave me this right. You never understood the
law of unanticipated consequences. When you reject the basic rules of
gentlemanly discourse, Ratner, you pay a price and can't expect me to
fail to exact it.

> > > > > > It's amusing to note H batting his usual .00001. Benny Morris, a neo-

> > > > > > Zionist? He's written about neo-Zionism, certainly, as have Anita
> > > > > > Shapira, Uri Ram, and others. Nobody except the brilliant Herr Watson,
> > > > > > though, has thought to daub Morris as a neo-Zionist.

Bad girl, Debbie. Anything to distract. And why not? Tell us about

Wiki on neo-Zionism. Don't cheat now.

> > > > > > Deborah

>
> > > > > You actually think he knows what neo-Zionism is? He read the term on
> > > > > some website. His branding Morris as such is par for the course.
> > > > > Whenever I think he's lost it and can't sink any further, he surprises
> > > > > me.
>
> > > > It was my phrase.

In fact, I did not know there was already a gloss on the phrase and I

still don't know whether given that fact there was ever any real
conflict. It's not worth my time. Perhaps the magisterial mystic
Debbie will explain it.

>

> > > Liar.
>
> > > Neo-Zionism
> > > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> > > Neo-Zionism emerged in the 1970s.[2] It is mainly constituted of
> > > settlers and members of the "national camp" in Israel. It is
> > > politically represented by the National Religious Party and the Likud
> > > and other small parties such as Tehiya, Tzomet and Moledet.[2]

Haha, I used it to describe a man who had turned to the right. It

looks as though I was pretty close.
>

> > > >I don't recall ever having seen it before.
>
> > > Another load of balls.

Get it together, Deb. It doesn't help you to assert that I am all-
knowing.
>

> > > >All I
> > > >mean by it is that after taking a lot of heat from inside Israel,
> > > >Morris has personally turned to the right.
>
> > > Crap.

See above, Deb.

>
> > > > Shlaim explains it. Morris is definitely a "New Historian".
>
> > > Imagine that.
>
> > > Deborah
>
> > "Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional
> > Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me. You
> > even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."
> > Once you learned that he was the leader and progenitor of the new
> > historians one heard nothing more from you about him though I did
> > remind you on occasion that you love him.
>
> OK, folks, this is for those of you who may still harbor a milligram
> of respect for HHW. As most know, HHW has crafted his posts involving
> Benny Morris to strongly imply that he has read Morris's books.

See above. Everyone read his blockbuster about the Palestinian refugee

problem, Ratner. It caused an international brouhaha. It represented
the fatal breach in the curtain of bullshit which had been wrapped
around Israeli history. No little Dutch boy could put his finger in
that dike. I haven't been the same since. It resulted in what you see
here today in thousands of us. Perhaps you feared that would happen to
YOU? It's dated now, but Pappe brought it up to date a few years ago
in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and I understand that Morris has
"revistied" it and doubled its size, this time compiling the
definitive list of rapes and massacres perpetrated in the process,
exceeding Pappe's compilation. As Deb loves Benny Morris, she can no
longer speak of "Pappe's Crappe" when confronted with those facts.

> Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is

> reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
> mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of
> his heroes,

He is something of a hero, though I based that on what is said *about*

him as a scholar and a man of consummate integrity, not from reading
his massive two volume study of the Holocaust. I'm not destined to di
that. It's not germane to anything I'm interested in. I'm not going to
re-read The Forty Days of Musa Dagh either.

although it was crystal clear he had never heard of
> Hilberg before my mention.

Don't pump yourself up. I heard about Hilberg from the redoubtable

Norman Finkelstein. And that was long before you and I had that
conversation about him in which you got so hot about the fact that I
favored Hilberg's figure on Jewish Holocaust dead. You decided that it
was anti-Semitic for me to favor the conclusion of the most famed and
respected Jewish Holocaust scholar.

Now above we have him pontificating about
> Benny Morris.

No Pontiff I, Ratner. But I have learned quite a bit about Morris.

Haven't you? Surely so, eh? But then perhaps that's not included in
the job description of resident Zionist slime monger.

To put this into perspective, read below, from a

> discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
> coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
> you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":

Precisely so. She obviously did. That is easily deduced from the fact

that she was praising him and on one occasion even said, "Don't ya
just love Benny Morris?" Her mistake was that she thought Morris was a
defender of the old historiography, the only kind she has any record
of supporting. She had apparently picked up Morris' recent apologetics
for ethnic cleansing without understanding that he was the man who
originally exposed it and is currently finishing a fine career by
embellishing his earlier exposes. Before going below, recall who Deb
is, a right wing racist, an equal opportunity racist having multiple
targets, and a deeply conflicted Zionist-American who doesn't give a

damn about her mother country if Israel is involved. She sees anti-
Semites under every bed and is, barring you, the most filthy
defamation artist on these groups. She and I go back as far as you and
I do. I know her as well as I know you. And that's full well enough
for this work.

>
> *****

Speaking of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, I said:

> > He [Pappe] describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
> > years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
> > through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government
> > documents.

Note that Ratner does not respond to this damningly substantive

comment on Pappe's book. Instead he latches onto this:

How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,

> > Benny Morris?
>
> LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?
> Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
> "Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
> idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.

But he is now the establishment court historian irrespective of what
he writes:

P. 1: Israel is a Zionist, Jewish State.

P. 2: As the vehicle Zionists utilized massive ethnic cleansing to
create the Jewish State.

P. 3: Professor Benny Morris, an historian, defends and justifies
ethnic cleansing, saying that Ben-Gurion was a "transferist" i.e., an
ethnic cleanser, and that it's regrettable he did not go the "whole
hog")

P. 4. Professor Morris has become an informal spokesman for the
Israeli establishment which has a vested interest in the defense of
ethnic cleansing.

THEREFORE, Morris is the Establishment's Historian in the sense that
he uses his fame as a scholar as the platform to defend the Israeli
Zionist establishment. What more could they want? Here's a man who
knows everything there is to know about what happened in 1948 and has
nary a bad thing to say about Zionism or ethnic cleansing, a man who
even thinks it may have been legal. Yes he's the establishment's
historian in spades. And an anti-Palestinian racist to boot. This will
all be shown below.

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/3f10933c01c2b20b
> *****
>
> Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
> "Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
> someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?

Ha, you are forgetting the exchange with Deb in which I was the one

Rape, massacre, transfer

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"That's what emerges."

The next transfer

Cultural dementia

War of barbarians

The iron wall approach?

> A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth

> about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
> inhibited our village idiot. Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
> that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
> coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
> ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
> Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong - I am fairly certain that
> the first major author classified as a New Historian is Simha Flapan.

Who had a much lower profile both inside and outside of Israel than

does Morris. Let them share the honor if you wish. Morris was
considered their "leader" in the early days. He is certainly a
progenitor of the movement. You don't need to pick nits on this.
Especially when you are only "fairly certain" of something.

> Of course, HHW has never heard of Flapan before this very moment,

Establishing facts on the ground are you Ratner?

but

> in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
> Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
> his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
> distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.

Tell us about Simcha Flapan, Ratner. That would be a boon for all of

us. Yes, please tell us about him. I'm beginning to sense a new field
of endeavor is opening up for me. First I'll look for articles on the
web, eh?

> > Then you took to denying you

> > ever said it because Google's search engine will no longer bring it
> > up. You're a bad girl, Debbie.

Yes, a bad, bad girl, Debbie.

[drahcir]

On May 27, 8:10 pm, "Alistair" <amclym...@home.net> wrote:
> How often are you advised to seek psychiatric counselling?

How long did you strain your "brain" to come up with that impotent
query?
>
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

[drahcir]

On May 27, 8:15 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On May 27, 10:32 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:

HHW will do anything to avoid replying to my post, the point of which
was simply to illustrate what a pretentious and lying ass he is, as
evidenced by his question to Deb about Morris uttered a few days after
revealing his complete ignorance of the same. HHW will NEVER address
this, preferring nonsense worthy only of an asylum. I will here paste
yet again the thread starter, as yet unreplied to in a way that
addresses the single, simple issue. It begins with HHW pretentiously

pontificating to Deb about Morris:

> Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional

> Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me. You
> even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."
> Once you learned that he was the leader and progenitor of the new
> historians one heard nothing more from you about him though I did
> remind you on occasion that you love him.

OK, folks, this is for those of you who may still harbor a milligram
of respect for HHW. As most know, HHW has crafted his posts involving
Benny Morris to strongly imply that he has read Morris's books.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is
reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of

his heroes, although it was crystal clear he had never heard of
Hilberg before my mention. Now above we have him pontificating about
Benny Morris. To put this into perspective, read below, from a

discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":

*****

> He [Pappe] describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
> years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
> through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government

> documents. How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
> Benny Morris?

LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?
Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
"Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/3f10933c01c2b20b
*****

Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
"Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?

A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth
about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
inhibited our village idiot. Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong - I am fairly certain that
the first major author classified as a New Historian is Simha Flapan.

Of course, HHW has never heard of Flapan before this very moment, but

in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.

>

> defender of the old ...
>
> read more »

[Bolt Upright]

On 27/05/2010 8:10 PM, Alistair wrote:
> How often are you advised to seek psychiatric counselling?
>

Probably every time she visits the bathhouse.

[dsharavi]

On May 27, 5:15 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
> I post this reply again because I didn't recognize it in Ratner's
> response AND because the original had been truncated. Readers, please
> go through to the end. Ratner doesn't want you to read this.

Comments like this are amusing, and indicative of the poster's
ignorance: if one poster doesn't want a post read, there's not much
he can do to prevent it.

> Cliip debris from previous posts of no substantive connection to the
> thread.

"Debris", lol
Translation: "Readers, Watson doesn't want you to read this."

> Note: I will clip nothing more of Ratner's maiden post which is very
> valuable to the actual discussion.

A pronouncement of selective editing, from the resident Pompous
Pronouncements Master.

> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
> > > > > > > > and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
> > > > > > > > doesn't merit a response.

So Watson splutters on for another 900 lines about these meritless
posts.

> The quote below from the introduction to the Ari Shavit interview of
> Morris. I posted the interview several times in the thread Ratner was
> posting to until he started this one.

To emphasize the point, or because he's as observant as he is
knowledgeable, H copies the first paragraph twice.

>It is probable he wished to escape this interview.

It's more probably he read it any one or more of the half dozen times
I posted it in the half dozen years since it was published. For the
complete interview, see my 12 January 2204 post:
Survival of the Fittest
Ari Shavit
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.feminism/msg/67f2ffe335ef0442

> Morris' parents were Marxists. He was born on a communal farm in
> Israel.

His parents were British immigrants; leftists, not communists. He was
born in Kibbutz Yasur, grew up in Jerusalem, where his parents moved
when he was a year old, and in New York, where the family spent six
years; his father was a diplomat and a published historian and poet.

>He refused to serve in a call-up of his reserve unit and spent
> three weeks in prison as a matter of principle.

Morris served his sadir, was a paratrooper in the Six Day War, and
wounded in 1969 during the War of Attrition. In 1982, he served as a
reservist in a mortar unit in Lebanon, when his unit was called up,
and he took part in the siege of West Beirut. It was Morris's
subsquent refusal to serve in the territories which landed him in the
pokey.

>That could hardly have
> been Zionist principle.

Zionists protesting Zionists' actions is ENTIRELY Zionist principle.

>He obtained his PhD from Cambridge, not
> exactly an intellectual atmosphere conducive to the excesses of
> rightist political ideologies such as Zionism.

Especially as his doctorate was in Anglo-German relations. He earned
his undergrad degree in history from Hebrew U.

>Thereafter he wrote his
> first book which was a ground breaking expose of the Israeli crimes of
> 1948, not the choice of subject one would expect from an ardent
> Zionist, even if one might expect it from an ambitious young
> historian. It's the one I read precisely because it was an
> international bombshell and related to the vexing problems we
> Americans were having with Israel.

If H had actually read the "international bombshell" -- which he
doesn't seem able to name -- he would have known that Morris covered
nothing that hadn't been covered a few years earlier by both Sachar
and Kurzman -- both of whom, unlike Morris, utilized Arab sources.

> After being blacklisted in Israel,

?

> he made some sort of promise to the President or Prime minister,
> whichever, and was given an academic post.

?

>His career in Israel was saved, but at what cost?

?

Morris was working at the J'lem Post when he published his first book,
and Morris remained at the J'lem Post for several years after he
published it. The "sort of promise to the President or Prime minster"
which H alleges is a figment of H's imagination--or, more likely, that
of whichever idiot propagandist H pilfered this from.

"In 1996, he was on the verge of emigrating to a job in America, and
told a journalist as much. At noon the day the article appeared, he
was summoned to the office of the country’s President, Ezer Weizmann,
who interrogated him for an hour about 1948. “Partly he wanted to know
if I really am a historian, and also he wanted to know if I was an
anti- Zionist as all my critics are portraying.” Satisfied that Morris
was a good Zionist and a good historian, the President ordered a close
aide to find Morris a job; and by the time he had walked him from the
office — about fifteen minutes — one had been lined up for him. It
took about a year for all the formal hoops to be jumped through, but
then he was established as a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at
the University of the Negev in Beersheba, a post he still holds."
http://www.thewormbook.com/elegans/helmintholog/archives/BM%20for%20hlog.pdf

>In recent years at the personal level at least Morris has turned hard
> right.

Morris is still Meretz, which no one can accuse of being "hard right."
Well, H can, probably.

>He saved his
> career in Israel where men who couldn't make those compromises at the
> intellectual level were driven from the country. A prime example is
> Ilan Pappe. I suspect the same was true of Avi Shlaim but haven't
> researched it.

H "suspects" but hasn't "researched". That describes what passes in
H's posts for facts.

Pappe wasn't "driven from the country"; he was fired from Haifa U for
fucking up. Thereafter he was hired by Exeter U, in a position H
elevated to "Chair of the History Department". Actually, Pappe was
hired as an occasional lecturer.

Avi Shlaim was born in Iraq, read history at Jesus College [<g>],
Cambridge, has lived in England since 1966, and is -- gasp! -- one of
those Evil Dual Citizens whom H perpetually denigrates.

Such are the perils of "suspect" over "research" Not that H gives a
whit, of course.

> > > > > > > Whatever post that may be. Since H snipped it, being obviously afraid
> > > > > > > of it, one can't tell.
>
> It was your post, wasn't it? And it contained your usual filth, didn't
> it?

"Filth" in the Watsonian lexicon of English usage: facts and truths
which Hunter Watson is too cowardly and dishonest to face.

>So you have everything you need to know regarding what post it was
> and why clippage was applied. I'm fully justified in clipping every
> post you write as they are all filled with ad hominem slurs. It hasn't
> occurred to you that you gave me this right. You never understood the
> law of unanticipated consequences. When you reject the basic rules of
> gentlemanly discourse, Ratner, you pay a price and can't expect me to
> fail to exact it.

Ratner, huh. H is obviously as muddled over whom he's addressing as he
is over facts he merely "suspects" but never bothers to research

>
> > > > > > > It's amusing to note H batting his usual .00001. Benny Morris, a neo-
> > > > > > > Zionist? He's written about neo-Zionism, certainly, as have Anita
> > > > > > > Shapira, Uri Ram, and others. Nobody except the brilliant Herr
> > > > > > > Watson, though, has thought to daub Morris as a neo-Zionist.
>
> Bad girl, Debbie. Anything to distract. And why not? Tell us about
> Wiki on neo-Zionism. Don't cheat now.

Wow, it took Herr Watson this long to respond?

> > > > > > You actually think he knows what neo-Zionism is? He read the term on
> > > > > > some website. His branding Morris as such is par for the course.
> > > > > > Whenever I think he's lost it and can't sink any further, he surprises
> > > > > > me.
>
> > > > > It was my phrase.
>
> In fact, I did not know there was already a gloss on the phrase and I
> still don't know whether given that fact there was ever any real
> conflict. It's not worth my time. Perhaps the magisterial mystic
> Debbie will explain it.

Watson lies again. There never any "gloss on the phrase", which has
been in use several decades. Naturally Watson can't be expected to
know this, as it's merely one of the myriad facts beyond his grasp.
Ergo, Watson can be expected to lie about it, then backpedal furiously
when caught in his lie -- as he does here.

> > > > Liar.
>
> > > > Neo-Zionism
> > > > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> > > > Neo-Zionism emerged in the 1970s.[2] It is mainly constituted of
> > > > settlers and members of the "national camp" in Israel. It is
> > > > politically represented by the National Religious Party and the Likud
> > > > and other small parties such as Tehiya, Tzomet and Moledet.[2]
>
> Haha, I used it to describe a man who had turned to the right. It
> looks as though I was pretty close.

Backpedal, backpedal. Previously, Herr Watson claimed he never saw the
phrase before he coined it himself.

> > > > >I don't recall ever having seen it before.
>
> > > > Another load of balls.
>
> Get it together, Deb. It doesn't help you to assert that I am all-
> knowing.
>
> > > > >All I
> > > > >mean by it is that after taking a lot of heat from inside Israel,
> > > > >Morris has personally turned to the right.
>
> > > > Crap.
>
> See above, Deb.

What I see above, from Herr Watson, is merely MOTSC.

>
> > > > > Shlaim explains it. Morris is definitely a "New Historian".
>
> > > > Imagine that.
> > > > Deborah
>

> > On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > "Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional
> > > Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me.

Talk about delusional. In the beginning? Watson wasn't even around "in
the beginning" when we were debating Morris and his works on these NGs
some fifteen years ago. Lacking facts, as usual, Herr Watson prefers
his lies.

> > > You
> > > even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."

The archives show that the first to post this phrase was none other
than Herr Watson himself:

"If Morris didn't have access to the IDF Archives Ilan Pappe
certainly did. And his revisionist narrative goes further than
that of Professor "Don't you just love" Benny Morris."
From: HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7dda1465e0c00a92

> > > Once you learned that he was the leader and progenitor of the new
> > > historians one heard nothing more from you about him though I did
> > > remind you on occasion that you love him.

Herr Watson quoted himself, as above. And as the above shows, any
facts Herr Watson has learned above Morris he learned from me.

>
> On May 27, 10:32 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, folks, this is for those of you who may still harbor a milligram
> > of respect for HHW. As most know, HHW has crafted his posts involving
> > Benny Morris to strongly imply that he has read Morris's books.

We know he hasn't, any more than he's read Sachar.

> See above.

What Herr Watson proved above is that he doesn't know doodle about
Benny Morris, and that he has lied repeatedly.

> Everyone read his blockbuster about the Palestinian refugee
> problem, Ratner.

Herr Watson hasn't. One can tell that from the hyperbole he spews
about it as follows. One can also tell by the fact that Herr Watson
has never once showns he has a clue what it's about.

> It caused an international brouhaha. It represented
> the fatal breach in the curtain of bullshit which had been wrapped
> around Israeli history. No little Dutch boy could put his finger in
> that dike. I haven't been the same since. It resulted in what you see
> here today in thousands of us.

What, senile delusions?

> Perhaps you feared that would happen to
> YOU? It's dated now, but Pappe brought it up to date a few years ago
> in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and I understand that Morris has
> "revistied" it and doubled its size,

Morris "revisited" it half a decade before Pappe published his 'Ethnic
Cleansing' crappe. One wonders why Watson his spewing all this about
Morris, considering how he denigrated Morris not too long ago.

> As Deb loves Benny Morris, she can no
> longer speak of "Pappe's Crappe" when confronted with those facts.

We know who really loves Benny Morris: according to Herr Watson's
original post, it was Ilan Pappe.

> > Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is
> > reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
> > mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of
> > his heroes,
>
> He is something of a hero, though I based that on what is said *about*
> him as a scholar and a man of consummate integrity, not from reading
> his massive two volume study of the Holocaust.

AIR, H implied he'd read Hilberg too.

>> although it was crystal clear he had never heard of
> > Hilberg before my mention.
>
> Don't pump yourself up.

Pumping oneself up is Herr Watson's domain.

>I heard about Hilberg from the redoubtable
> Norman Finkelstein.

And that, obviously, was the flimsy basis of Herr Watson's pretended
expertise on the subject. AIR, Herr Watson performed a similar stunt
on Benjamin Pogrund, after first spending some time denigrating him.

And that was long before you and I had that
> conversation about him in which you got so hot about the fact that I
> favored Hilberg's figure on Jewish Holocaust dead. You decided that it
> was anti-Semitic for me to favor the conclusion of the most famed and
> respected Jewish Holocaust scholar.
>
> > Now above we have him pontificating about
> > Benny Morris.

Amusing, isn't it?

>
> No Pontiff I, Ratner. But I have learned quite a bit about Morris.

Enough to feel he can lie about it -- but not enough to make his lies
believable.

> Haven't you? Surely so, eh? But then perhaps that's not included in
> the job description of resident Zionist slime monger.
>
> > To put this into perspective, read below, from a
> > discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
> > coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
> > you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":
>
> Precisely so. She obviously did.

Obviously I did not. This is merely another lie, since H wasn't around
when the members of this NG were discussing Morris and his works back
in the 90s and early years of this decade.

>That is easily deduced from the fact
> that she was praising him and on one occasion even said, "Don't ya
> just love Benny Morris?"

H forgets that it was H himself who first posted that phrase.

> Her mistake was that she thought Morris was a
> defender of the old historiography, the only kind she has any record
> of supporting. She had apparently picked up Morris' recent apologetics
> for ethnic cleansing without understanding that he was the man who
> originally exposed it and is currently finishing a fine career by
> embellishing his earlier exposes.

lol
H is obviously far more desperate than previously suspected. Possibly,
H is drunk again, as well.

> Before going below, recall who Deb
> is, a right wing racist, an equal opportunity racist having multiple
> targets, and a deeply conflicted Zionist-American who doesn't give a
> damn about her mother country if Israel is involved.

This is amusing, coming from H, who has a prissy tizzy fit over ad
homs. In this case, however, all H has is ad homs. He hasn't any
facts, that's for sure.

>She sees anti-
> Semites under every bed and is, barring you, the most filthy
> defamation artist on these groups. She and I go back as far as you and
> I do. I know her as well as I know you.

lol
And we both know that H doesn't know enough to find his backside with
both hands and a flashlight at high noon.

>>> How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
> > > Benny Morris?
>
> > LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?

Nope, neither of his ignorance, nor of his mendacity.

> > Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
> > "Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
> > idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.
>
> But he is now the establishment court historian irrespective of what
> he writes

Because H says so, and according to H, the sun revolves around H's
pronouncements.

[snip H's drunken childish PP stuff]

> > Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
> > "Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
> > someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?

H still thinks Morris is an "Israeli establishment historian". He
made another of his PPs to prove it.

> Ha, you are forgetting the exchange with Deb in which I was the one
> who knew Benny Morris and that was something like two years ago.

No. Naturally, H can't produce any quotes from that imaginary
discussion, let alone an actual link. And if there's anything which
shows Hunter Watson in all his absurdity, it's this statement of his:

> Historians are forbidden to lie

> The exchanges between Shavit and Benny Morris are posted here as

> context for what I say above:

More selective editing. The entire article is here:

From: dsha...@hotmail.com (Deborah Sharavi)
Date: 31 Aug 2004 10:43:28 -0700
Survival of the Fittest, by Ari Shavit

H posted ALMOST the entire article. H snipped the last comment and
Morris's final response, as follow:

Shavit:
The title of the book you are now publishing in Hebrew is
"Victims." In the end, then, your argument is that of the two victims
of this conflict, we are the bigger one.

Morris:
"Yes. Exactly. We are the greater victims in the course of
history and we are also the greater potential victim. Even though we
are oppressing the Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are a
small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to eliminate
us. So it's possible than when their desire is realized, everyone will
understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will understand we
are the true victims. But by then it will be too late."

> > A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth
> > about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
> > inhibited our village idiot.

H's overinflated ego is the problem. His inherent mendacity is
another.

> > Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
> > that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
> > coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
> > ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
> > Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong -

Yes. Morris seems to have coined the term to refer to Israeli
historians who challenged the "George Washington and the Cherry Tree"
stories about the War of Independence. I doubt it referred to
historians like Sachar, Kurzman, and others who never bought those
stories -- and who are not, of course, Israeli historians.

> > I am fairly certain that
> > the first major author classified as a New Historian is Simha Flapan.

> Who had a much lower profile both inside and outside of Israel than
> does Morris.

lol
As if Watson would know.

> Let them share the honor if you wish. Morris was
> considered their "leader" in the early days. He is certainly a
> progenitor of the movement. You don't need to pick nits on this.
> Especially when you are only "fairly certain" of something.

H doesn't want anyone "picking nits" -- i.e., noting the details -- on
this for fear his errors will be noted. H's errors include almost
everything in the above paragraph, i.e.: There was never any "New
Historians" movement, as H suggests, and thus, Morris was never its
"progenitor", nor it "leader". Morris used the term to describe a
group of recent -- in 1988 -- Israeli historians, which included
himself, Shlaim, Segev, Cohen, Pappe, and later, Flapan. Flapan was
included later, because he died in 1987, but had written two histories
(in 1979 and 1987) debunking the myths supposedly debunked by the "New
Historians".

> > Of course, HHW has never heard of Flapan before this very moment,
>
> Establishing facts on the ground are you Ratner?

Stating a probability.

>
> > but
> > in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
> > Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
> > his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
> > distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.
>

Could he ever?

> Tell us about Simcha Flapan, Ratner. That would be a boon for all of
> us.

Especially for H.

> Yes, please tell us about him. I'm beginning to sense a new field
> of endeavor is opening up for me. First I'll look for articles on the
> web, eh?

Second, H will extrapolate from whatever he can find, then present
himself as an expert on Flapan's writings -- which, of course, H has
never heard of.

> > > Then you took to denying you
> > > ever said it because Google's search engine will no longer bring it
> > > up. You're a bad girl, Debbie.
>
> Yes, a bad, bad girl, Debbie.

No, "bad bad Ratner"? After all, much of the above was with Ratner,
but one can hardly expect sense from a sexist pig who is also senile,
and one should NEVER expect facts from Hunter Watson.

Deborah

[drahcir]

On May 28, 6:41 pm, Bolt Upright <Nob...@home.com> wrote:
> On 27/05/2010 8:10 PM, Alistair wrote:> How often are you advised to seek psychiatric counselling?
>
> Probably every time she visits the bathhouse.

Gary with his one track "mind"...
>
>
>
> > "drahcir"<justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>  wrote in message

[coaste...@yahoo.com]

As I said, bad bad girl.

[dsharavi]

>>On Jun 2, 2:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>><coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>I don't often read you, Deb.
.
>On Jun 2, 10:37 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>Especially when you know I've proven you wrong, yet again, and exposed
>>your lies. Have you already forgotten your requests to which I
>>responded? Here they are again, for your convenience. Do you plan to
>>respond to MY requests--or are you going to continue making your usual
>>lame excuses?

On Jun 3, 4:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>I told you I don't read you.

Wrong again. You stated "I don't often read you, Deb." Your assertion
that you do NOT read me, period, is, of course, a blatant lie.

>Have you made requests? Feel free too outline
>them here, and if I miss them, remind me.

I've done that quite a few times. You have either ignored my
requests,
or produced lame excuses, or outright lies.
>>=====================
>>From: dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 07:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Hunter Watson: Lying again, being an idiot, and too
>>stupid to know what else to do

>Given that I haven't seen your "requests," how do you come to the
>conclusion above. Lying, idiocy, stupidity. Really now. Send us your
>"requests". I look forward to gratifying you requests.

Yet another lie. You've seen them many times. You ignore them, or lie
about them, because you can't respond to them.

>My God, Deborah! I can't imagine not facing anything you have ever
>said competently and without mendacity.

Yet another of your lies.

>Usually, however, what you say is beneath contempt, either
>intellectually or morally. Don't hesitate should you have asked
>a fair-minded and cogent question.

I asked you repeatedly to produce evidence to support your false
allegations against me. You failed and refused to do so every time,
because you can't produce any evidence. Put simply, you lied.
Repeatedly.

>>>>>On May 27, 4:26 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>Wrong as usual, stupid old man. I knew who Morris was years before you
>>>>>>started squatting on these NGs.
>You knew of *Morris* but definitely not of his academic work.
>That is obvious. This response is devious, Deborah, like most
>everything you write.

I read Morris years before you popped up on these groups, and quoted
his works extensively. Stop lying.

[snip Watsonian palaver]

>>>On May 28, 9:33 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>None of this changes the fact that I knew who Morris was years before
>>>>you started squatting on these NGs -- and I still know more about
>>>>Morris than you know.

>>>>>It was that conflation of
>>>>>the two very different Benny Morris realities which led you to make
>>>>>the blunder of your famous "Don't ya just love Benny Morris" comment.
>>>>>You loved Morris for his personal apologetics about ethnic cleansing.

>>>>As I have show several times, old fool, it was YOU who posted the
>>>>"don't you just love Benny Morris" comment, which you attributed to
>>>>Ilan Pappe.Want the link to your old post again?

>You know that's a lie. You rely on the belief that I can no longer
>resurrect it from the archives with Google's browser.

Really? I can "resurrect it", quite easily. Here are a few
posts, with links thereto, where you made the same
false assertion, as well as other false assertions:

I've read Benny Morris about whom you once inadvisably
exclaimed something like: "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/beae41c9865486a5

"Don't ya just love Benny Morris!?" Deborah.
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/106eef6aaeec7e9a

Don't you just love Benny Morris, Deborah?
--From: HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/b8d9e7121318e10a

And his revisionist narrative goes further than that of Professor
"Don't you just love" Benny Morris.

--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>

Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7dda1465e0c00a92

"Don't you just love Benny Morris," Nyob? You love him. You said it.
Don't forget it. You hadn't read his book and didn't realize that
he's the NEW HISTORIAN who first confirmed the NAKBA took
place, the forced expulsion of the Palestinian people, the
"catastrophe". If you had any moral fiber you could avoid such
humiliations.
It's said you've got family in israel and that's all that matters to
you. Is that true? Or is it that you simply are thrilled by crimes
against humanity so long as Israelis are dishing it out?
What an ignorant schnorrer you are, Nyob. Abandoned and unemployed,
filled with hate. Worse though is your failure in attaining a decent
education. Given your level of pretension that's fatal.
You know, Nyob, I don't think there are any actual Jews here who
respect you.
Apparently there is something which distinguishes
a bachelors degree in Jewish History from getting an education.
You know nothing. You simply puff yourself up and issue insinuation
after insinuation. But you never win so much as a single round. I
don't mind this trivial crap a bit because I'm confident that you'll
emerge bloody.
Try again to attain an education. It might not be too
late. You're just in your sixties. As am I.
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/be5b424690443a5d

"Don't ya just love Benny Morris?" (Deborah)
From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/16ea72bb70f8d34c

"Don't you just love Benny Morris." (Deborah)
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/08f93a77714909a4

you can get a lot of good stuff from Benny Morris. You know,
the Morris of whom Deborah famously said, "Don't you just love
Benny Morris" before having read him.
From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:49:54 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/f8357cef67527b8d

Don't you just love Benny Morris? Why didn't you defend that
miserable fraudster against Mearsheimer & Walt?
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:26:46 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/fc266835ce125708

You can start with the histories which have been written in
the last fifteen or twenty years. Don't you just love Benny Morris?
--From: "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.palestine/msg/4d940bfda8be...

>>On May 28, 9:42 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>><coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>Paste the whole thing in, Deb. We want everyone to see it.

>>I'll just bet you do.

>You bet, Deb. We want everyone to see it. Paste it in.

Already did. Are you going to lie, again, that you missed it?

>>>>[flush nonsense]
>>>Repost what Deb couldn't bear for the readership to see:
>>As stated previously, comments like this are amusing as well as
>>indicative of the poster's ignorance. If Poster A doesn't want "the
>>readership", to use Hunter Watson's inflated designation, to see what
>>Poster B posted, there's nothing Poster A can do to prevent it.
>A mere justification for hiding and obscuring your duplicity.

You mean, of course, your own oft-demonstrated mendacity, duplicity,
cowardice, and dishonesty.

>>>Your post here is a perfect example as to why you are constantly on
>>>the defensive. It has to do with failures of probity and candor on
>>>your part. My point regarding you and Professor Benny Morris is
>>>PRECISELY that you knew something about Morris' personal political
>>>views, e.g., as were displayed in 2004 in the Shavit interview
>>One reason is because I read, and posted, that interview back in
>>January 2004,
>That proves my point. You knew something about his personal political
>views.

Morris never made any secret of them. Your problem is that you've
never read Morris's works. Your point is pointless.

>>as well as several times thereafter.
>See immediately above.
>>Another reason is
>>that those "personal political views", as reflected in that article,
>>came as no great surprise. The most salient reason is that I
>>obviously know more about the subject than Hunter Watson,
.
>The subject? What's that, Deb? Certainly it's not what Morris wrote in
>his seminal book about the Naqba! You've always denied what he writes
>there. You've always adhered slavishly to the traditional Israeli
>historiography which in retrospect was an obvious plethora of lies.
>When we first met you this was the line you took invariably. Today you
>have lost your self-confidence.

You really should give up the bottle, Hunter, and get yourself to
regular AA meetings. They might be able to help your delusions.

>>who, rather than
>>making any attempt to learn, is content to obfuscate, misdirect, gave
>>way to chronic flights of hyperbolic fantasy, and generally lie.
>Point them out, bitch.

Let's just confine ourselves to a measly few of your false claims as
set forth in this post, for starters -- for which you've repeatedly
failed and refused to produce any support:

1) You claim I stated "Don't you just love Benny Morris?", which, for
some weird reason, you keep repeating, although it was YOU who made
this remark.
2) You claimed I made a "racist remark" about Al Sharpton -- but you
repeatedly failed and refused to produce that remark.
3) Although you claim I "love Benny Morris", you also claim I "never
read his book", never "realized he's a NEW HISTORIAN", didn't know he
"first confirmed the NAKBA took place", until a "conversation" some
two years ago, where you advised me of all of the above.
4) You claim I've "got family in israel and that's all that
matters to you."
5) You assert that I have "a bachelors degree in Jewish History",
while at the same time I'm a " failure in attaining a decent
education". I "know nothing", and I'm an "ignorant schnorrer".
6) You state I'm "just in your sixties".

Have you any evidence at all for any of the above? No.

>>And now, to accede to the request above, here's the whole post again:
>>From: dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>
>>Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 19:25:43 -0700 (PDT)

>>On May 27, 5:15 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:

>>>I post this reply again because I didn't recognize it in Ratner's
>>>response AND because the original had been truncated. Readers, please
>>>go through to the end. Ratner doesn't want you to read this.
>>Comments like this are amusing, and indicative of the poster's
>>ignorance: if one poster doesn't want a post read, there's not much
>>he can do to prevent it.

>The question is whether given the circumstances and given Ratner's
>squirming it is more or less likely to be read. That something of a
>judgment to be made in light of that very squirm factor. The readers
>will judge that.

>>>Cliip debris from previous posts of no substantive connection to the
>>>thread.
>>"Debris", lol
>>Translation: "Readers, Watson doesn't want you to read this."

>Debris is only the computer generated path whereby this post passed by
>way of others to the present. They mean nothing of substance and you,
>lying bitch, know it.

YOU made the silly statement "Ratner doesnt want you to read this". I
parroted your original silliness.

>>>Note: I will clip nothing more of Ratner's maiden post which is very
>>>valuable to the actual discussion.
>>A pronouncement of selective editing, from the resident Pompous
>>Pronouncements Master.

>Precisely the opposite, lying bitch.

Irrelevant to your status as the resident Pompous Pronouncements
Master. The comment regarding your, shall be be polite about it,
"selective editing" is factual. That you routinely falsify posts is
also factual.

>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
>>>>>>>>>>and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
>>>>>>>>>>doesn't merit a response.
>>So Watson splutters on for another 900 lines about these meritless
>>posts.

>Can't handle my neo-Zionist allegation against Morris?

Look up the term "neo-Zionist" so you'll be able to use it properly.
Ditto "schnorrer".

>>>It is probable he wished to escape this interview.
>>It's more probably he read it any one or more of the half dozen times
>>I posted it in the half dozen years since it was published. For the

>>complete interview, see my 12 January 2004 post:
>Where, other than sheer desperation, did you acquire this self-
>destructive instinct, Deborah. The fact that you knew ONLY Morris'
>personal political views proves my case.

You don't know what I know, old man -- especially since, by your own
statements, "I don't often read you, Deb" ( Jun 2, 2:50 pm) and "I
told you I don't read you" (Jun 3, 4:56 pm). What I don't know is how
to translate into intelligible English your statements immediately
above.

>Why do you continue to emphasize it? The Shavit article is about
>his personal politics. Tell us, do you now admit that Flapan but
>mostly Morris was the leader of the New Historians?

One can hardly "admit" what never was. I can't, anyway.

>Morris tore the curtain of lies from the Naqba,
>the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Neither Morris nor Flapan nor Segev wrote anything that hadn't
already been covered by American and British historians,
who, unlike the so-called "New Historians", made extensive use of Arab
sources.

>>Survival of the Fittest
>>Ari Shavit
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.feminism/msg/67f2ffe335ef0442

.

>>>Morris' parents were Marxists. He was born on a communal farm in
>>>Israel.

.
>>His parents ...

>were socialists

[truncation by HHW restored:

His parents were British immigrants; leftists, not communists. He was
born in Kibbutz Yasur, grew up in Jerusalem, where his parents moved
when he was a year old, and in New York, where the family spent six
years; his father was a diplomat and a published historian and poet.

>which in their era usually meant Marxists. The issue
>among them was whether to follow Marx or Lenin, the deviationist, on
>the nature of the revolutionary process. I'll leave you to sort that
>out. But don't hesitate to sort out the intellectual origins of Benny
>Morris' parents. As the lived on a communal kibutz I'm sure they are
>sainted in your view.

You're "sure" of a lot of things which are proven rubbish. Morris's
parents were Hashomer Hatza'ir, which lost its Marxist orientation
after WWI; they emigrated from England in 1947; Morris was born in
1948; the family moved to Jerusalem in 1949, and to New York in 1957.
You made several ridiculous claims about Morris's service record --
or rather, his lack of one -- which were wrong.

[restoration of what HHW truncated]:

.
?
.

>he made some sort of promise to the President or Prime minister,
>whichever, and was given an academic post.
.
?
>His career in Israel was saved, but at what cost?

.
?

Morris was working at the J'lem Post when he published his first
book, and Morris remained at the J'lem Post for several years
after he published it. The "sort of promise to the President or
Prime minster" which H alleges is a figment of H's imagination--
or, more likely, that of whichever idiot propagandist H pilfered
this from.

"In 1996, he was on the verge of emigrating to a job in America, and
told a journalist as much. At noon the day the article appeared, he
was summoned to the office of the country’s President, Ezer Weizmann,
who interrogated him for an hour about 1948. “Partly he wanted to
know if I really am a historian, and also he wanted to know if I was
an anti- Zionist as all my critics are portraying.” Satisfied that
Morris was a good Zionist and a good historian, the President
ordered a close aide to find Morris a job; and by the time he had
walked him from the office — about fifteen minutes — one had
been lined up for him. It took about a year for all the formal hoops
to be jumped through, but then he was established as a professor
of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of the Negev in
Beersheba, a post he still holds."

http://www.thewormbook.com/elegans/helmintholog/archives/BM%20for%20h...
.

.

"Filth" in the Watsonian lexicon of English usage: facts and truths
which Hunter Watson is too cowardly and dishonest to face.
.
>So you have everything you need to know regarding what post it was
>and why clippage was applied. I'm fully justified in clipping every
>post you write as they are all filled with ad hominem slurs. It hasn't
>occurred to you that you gave me this right. You never understood the
>law of unanticipated consequences. When you reject the basic rules of
>gentlemanly discourse, Ratner, you pay a price and can't expect me to
>fail to exact it.
.
Ratner, huh. H is obviously as muddled over whom he's addressing as

he is over facts he merely "suspects" but never bothers to research.
.

>>>>>>>It's amusing to note H batting his usual .00001. Benny Morris, a neo-
>>>>>>>Zionist? He's written about neo-Zionism, certainly, as have Anita
>>>>>>>Shapira, Uri Ram, and others. Nobody except the brilliant Herr
>>>>>>>Watson, though, has thought to daub Morris as a neo-Zionist.
.
>Bad girl, Debbie. Anything to distract. And why not? Tell us about
>Wiki on neo-Zionism. Don't cheat now.
.
Wow, it took Herr Watson this long to respond?

.

>>>>>>You actually think he knows what neo-Zionism is? He read the term on
>>>>>>some website. His branding Morris as such is par for the course.
>>>>>>Whenever I think he's lost it and can't sink any further, he surprises
>>>>>>me.

.
>>>>>It was my phrase.

.
>In fact, I did not know there was already a gloss on the phrase and I
>still don't know whether given that fact there was ever any real
>conflict. It's not worth my time. Perhaps the magisterial mystic
>Debbie will explain it.
.
Watson lies again. There never any "gloss on the phrase", which has
been in use several decades. Naturally Watson can't be expected to
know this, as it's merely one of the myriad facts beyond his grasp.
Ergo, Watson can be expected to lie about it, then backpedal
furiously when caught in his lie -- as he does here.
.
>>>>Liar.
>>>>Neo-Zionism
>>>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>Neo-Zionism emerged in the 1970s.[2] It is mainly constituted of
>>>>settlers and members of the "national camp" in Israel. It is
>>>>politically represented by the National Religious Party and the Likud
>>>>and other small parties such as Tehiya, Tzomet and Moledet.[2]

.

>Haha, I used it to describe a man who had turned to the right. It
>looks as though I was pretty close.
.
Backpedal, backpedal. Previously, Herr Watson claimed he never saw
the phrase before he coined it himself.
.
>>>>>I don't recall ever having seen it before.
>>>>Another load of balls.
.
>Get it together, Deb. It doesn't help you to assert that I am all-
>knowing.
.
>>>>>All I
>>>>>mean by it is that after taking a lot of heat from inside Israel,
>>>>>Morris has personally turned to the right.
>>>>Crap.

.
>See above, Deb.

.
What I see above, from Herr Watson, is merely MOTSC.
.
>>>>>Shlaim explains it. Morris is definitely a "New Historian".
>>>>Imagine that.
>>>>Deborah

.

>>On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>"Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional
>>>Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me.
.
Talk about delusional. In the beginning? Watson wasn't even around
"in the beginning" when we were debating Morris and his works
on these NGs some fifteen years ago. Lacking facts, as usual, Herr
Watson prefers his lies.
.
>>>You
>>>even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."

.

The archives show that the first to post this phrase was none other

than Herr Watson himself.

"And his revisionist narrative goes further than
that of Professor "Don't you just love" Benny Morris."
From: HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7dda1465e0c00a92

.

.
What, senile delusions?
.

>Perhaps you feared that would happen to
>YOU? It's dated now, but Pappe brought it up to date a few years ago
>in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and I understand that Morris has
>"revistied" it and doubled its size,

.

Morris "revisited" it half a decade before Pappe published his
'Ethnic Cleansing' crappe. One wonders why Watson his spewing
all this about Morris, considering how he denigrated Morris not
too long ago.
.
>As Deb loves Benny Morris, she can no
>longer speak of "Pappe's Crappe" when confronted with those facts.
.
We know who really loves Benny Morris: according to Herr Watson's
original post, it was Ilan Pappe.
.
>>Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is
>>reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
>>mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of
>>his heroes,

.

.
Amusing, isn't it?
.

>No Pontiff I, Ratner. But I have learned quite a bit about Morris.
.
Enough to feel he can lie about it -- but not enough to make his lies
believable.
.
>Haven't you? Surely so, eh? But then perhaps that's not included in
>the job description of resident Zionist slime monger.
.
>>To put this into perspective, read below, from a
>>discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
>>coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
>>you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":

.

>Precisely so. She obviously did.
.
Obviously I did not. This is merely another lie, since H wasn't
around when the members of this NG were discussing Morris
and his works back in the 90s and early years of this decade.
.
>That is easily deduced from the fact
>that she was praising him and on one occasion even said, "Don't ya
>just love Benny Morris?"

.

.

>>LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?

.

Nope, neither of his ignorance, nor of his mendacity.
.
>>Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
>>"Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
>>idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.
.
>But he is now the establishment court historian irrespective of what
>he writes

.

Because H says so, and according to H, the sun revolves around H's
pronouncements.
.
[snip H's drunken childish PP stuff]

.

>>Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
>>"Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
>>someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?

.

H still thinks Morris is an "Israeli establishment historian". He
made another of his PPs to prove it.
.
>Ha, you are forgetting the exchange with Deb in which I was the one
>who knew Benny Morris and that was something like two years ago.
.
No. Naturally, H can't produce any quotes from that imaginary
discussion, let alone an actual link. And if there's anything which
shows Hunter Watson in all his absurdity, it's this statement of his:

.

>Historians are forbidden to lie
>The exchanges between Shavit and Benny Morris are posted here as
>context for what I say above:

.

More selective editing. The entire article is here:

.
From: dshar...@hotmail.com (Deborah Sharavi)

Date: 31 Aug 2004 10:43:28 -0700
Survival of the Fittest, by Ari Shavit

.

H posted ALMOST the entire article. H snipped the last comment and
Morris's final response, as follow:

.

Shavit:
The title of the book you are now publishing in Hebrew is
"Victims." In the end, then, your argument is that of the two victims
of this conflict, we are the bigger one.
Morris:
"Yes. Exactly. We are the greater victims in the course of
history and we are also the greater potential victim. Even though we
are oppressing the Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are
a small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to
eliminate
us. So it's possible than when their desire is realized, everyone
will understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will
understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late."

.

>>A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth
>>about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
>>inhibited our village idiot.
.
H's overinflated ego is the problem. His inherent mendacity is
another.
.
>>Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
>>that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
>>coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
>>ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
>>Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong -

.

.

>Establishing facts on the ground are you Ratner?

.
Stating a probability.

.
>>but
>>in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
>>Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
>>his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
>>distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.

.
Could he ever?
.

>Tell us about Simcha Flapan, Ratner. That would be a boon for all
>of us.

.
Especially for H.

.
>Yes, please tell us about him. I'm beginning to sense a new field
>of endeavor is opening up for me. First I'll look for articles on the
>web, eh?

.

Second, H will extrapolate from whatever he can find, then present
himself as an expert on Flapan's writings -- which, of course, H has
never heard of.
.
>>>Then you took to denying you
>>>ever said it because Google's search engine will no longer bring it
>>>up. You're a bad girl, Debbie.
.
>Yes, a bad, bad girl, Debbie.
.
No, "bad bad Ratner"? After all, much of the above was with Ratner,
but one can hardly expect sense from a sexist pig who is also senile,
and one should NEVER expect facts from Hunter Watson.
Deborah

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/4df818319b1aff39
.
And now, about that "racist remark" you keep falsely alleging I made
regarding Al Sharpton -- where is it?
Deborah
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/a3f897dd1bcbae14
.
So, Hunter, where IS that "racist remark" you keep falsely alleging I
made regarding Al Sharpton. Just can't find it, can you? Want a link
to the thread in which you made your first false allegation on this?

Deborah

On Jun 11, 8:10 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote: