The *right* of Israel to exist as a Jewish state
coaste...@yahoo.com
to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement. You are asking
them to internalize the fact that they have less right to live freely
on their own ancestral lands where they have lived in unbroken
continuity for millenia, than an immigrant to the Middle East who, by
an accident of birth, happens to have been born into a "preferred"
religion." (From Lawrence of Cyberia)
drahcir
wrote:
> "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
> them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
> state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
> own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
Total bullshit. The arab population of Palestine increased
dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
countries. Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
Jewish presence had to offer. Even today, just ask Arab residents of
Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
financial incentive.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
> > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
> > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
> > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
>
> Total bullshit. The arab population of Palestine increased
> dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
> opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
> countries.
So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
1947-9 and 1967 to those surrounding Arab countries? Can't have those
Arabs living a better life now can we?
Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence and after
which they behaved like demons. 1885 perhaps?
> there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> Jewish presence had to offer.
So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
Even today, just ask Arab residents of
> Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
> financial incentive.
Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
>
> You are asking
>
>
>
> > them to internalize the fact that they have less right to live freely
> > on their own ancestral lands where they have lived in unbroken
> > continuity for millenia, than an immigrant to the Middle East who, by
> > an accident of birth, happens to have been born into a "preferred"
> > religion." (From Lawrence of Cyberia)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
drahcir
wrote:
> On Nov 28, 9:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
> > > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
> > > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
> > > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
>
> > Total bullshit. The arab population of Palestine increased
> > dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
> > opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
> > countries.
>
> So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
> 1947-9 and 1967 to those surrounding Arab countries? Can't have those
> Arabs living a better life now can we?
Problem is, H, that you refuse to learn about the history of Israel
from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
happened.
>
> Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
>
> When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence and after
> which they behaved like demons. 1885 perhaps?
Get a credible history of Israel to make that determination for
yourself. Apparently, the consensus is that Sachar is the best. Try
it. It's funny - you spend your whole day posting nonsense to this
group, and claim to have read so much, yet you are a total ignoramus.
The reason, of course, is that you are an incorrigible liar - you've
read next to nothing about Israel, and certainly never a credible
history.
>
> > there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> > Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> > Jewish presence had to offer.
>
> So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
if that's what your poor, damaged jumble of neurons makes of my
statement, you're beyond help. I am sure no one reading this will fail
to notice that you have asked this question only a few lines below my
statement, quoted from above:
"The arab population of Palestine increased
dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism"
You really must face the fact that you are alzheimic, H. If you fact
that reality, you'll fare better in what little time is left to you.
>
> Even today, just ask Arab residents of
>
> > Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
> > financial incentive.
>
> Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
Your question makes no sense. Every normal reader can perceive that
the point I am making is that Jewish Palestine, then Israel, was and
is a great place for arabs to live. It could have been so much better
if arabs hadn't listened to their silly leaders.
>
> Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
> state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
> Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
Poor, befuddled H. How do you get through your day?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 28, 2:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 9:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
> > > > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > > > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
> > > > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
> > > > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
>
> > > Total bullshit. The arab population of Palestine increased
> > > dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
> > > opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
> > > countries.
>
> > So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
> > 1947-9 and 1967 to those surrounding Arab countries? Can't have those
> > Arabs living a better life now can we?
>
> Problem is, H, that you refuse to learn about the history of Israel
> from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
> the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
> happened.
Then why did Benny Morris spend three or four hundred pages describing
them? Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
> > Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
>
> > When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence and after
> > which they behaved like demons. 1885 perhaps?
>
> Get a credible history of Israel to make that determination for
> yourself.
But you are not going to comment based on your broad reading of the
history of Palestine. Why not? You can even use the "Old Historians"
who created and perpetuated the myths of the creation of the Jewish
State.
> Apparently, the consensus is that Sachar is the best.
I've read Sachar. Tell you what, let's put Sachar opposite Pappe and
Shlaim and simply compare what they say issue by issue. I'm not at all
concerned by that. For one thing Sachar wrote before the relevant
archives were opened to historians. There is something about those
archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate
the fact that they were opened at all now don't you?
Try
> it. It's funny - you spend your whole day posting nonsense to this
> group, and claim to have read so much, yet you are a total ignoramus.
Do I get to use your level of knowledge as my minimum benchmark?
> The reason, of course, is that you are an incorrigible liar - you've
> read next to nothing about Israel, and certainly never a credible
> history.
I have certainly read Sachar. I read the local library's copy a year
or two ago. I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
line".
> > > there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> > > Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> > > Jewish presence had to offer.
>
> > So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
>
> if that's what your poor, damaged jumble of neurons makes of my
> statement, you're beyond help.
Unfortunately, though my comment was straightforward and telling, it
still confounded you. Zionism was and is a territorially aggressive
ideology based on the premise that it was the *right* of Jews to take
Palestine from its native people and that it would be implemented when
the opportunity presented itself; to use lingo of their socialist
milieu, when the correlation of forces was favorable to them. That
opportunity came at the time of the British withdrawal and the UN
Partition. The Zionists, most especially Ben-Gurion, made no bones
about it in private.
It's interesting that although the Jews in the early Yishuv pretty
much kept their mouths shut about their ideological goals, the
Palestinians caught on pretty early. They knew what was happening and
what the future held for thim if they did nothing. This fueled the
Arab revolts in the thirties which were defeated by the British. Even
shortly before the british left the parties were face to face and the
Jews were the first to strike with a carefully considered plan of
expulsion which had been in gestation for ten years and had gone
through four different formulations.
I am sure no one reading this will fail
> to notice that you have asked this question only a few lines below my
> statement, quoted from above:
>
> "The arab population of Palestine increased
> dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism"
I responded. You didn't like it. And I'm continuing to respond. Pay
attention.
> You really must face the fact that you are alzheimic, H. If you fact
> that reality, you'll fare better in what little time is left to you.
> > Even today, just ask Arab residents of
>
> > > Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
> > > financial incentive.
>
> > Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
> > Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
> > state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
> > Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
>
> Your question makes no sense. Every normal reader can perceive that
> the point I am making is that Jewish Palestine, then Israel, was and
> is a great place for arabs to live. It could have been so much better
> if arabs hadn't listened to their silly leaders.
How could the Arabs expect to live in this "great place" when they
accurately understood that the plan of the Jews was to take the land
for themselves? To make it Arabrein. Nothing has changed. A million
were expelled pursuant to the plan justified by the ideology, your
ideology not to make too fine a point of it. Will you take
responsibility for what was done in its name?
> Poor, befuddled H. How do you get through your day?
By routinely punching you up. Look, Ratner, you can't get away with
the naked assertion that the Arabs were welcome in what you yourself
describe as a "Jewish Palestine" and that somehow they lost their
right to their ancient homeland because they didn't want to submit. Of
course they had a right to resist. Even a duty. Who can doubt it?
Sixty percent of the people were non-Jewish in 1947-48 and that
fraction could only get worse from the point of view of the European
immigrants. Welcome, indeed. Expulsion was the only way to make the
ideological goal of a Jewish state work. Ben-Gurion took the path of a
great crime against humanity, one he and his men had been planning for
a long time. It's that crime and its sequellae in 1967 which is at the
core of the dispute. It was a giant injustice and one which can not be
justified by the previous history of Jews in Europe. One crime never
justifies another. The subsequent one can always be prosecuted
irrespective of whether the first one was.
Why do you spurn your chance to settle for 78% of the entire country?
That's very dangerous chutzpah. How is it that you think you are going
to get away with it?
coaste...@yahoo.com
and seriously. You could well get what you want, war by Israel against
Iran.
Iranian lawmaker: Iran could leave nuclear treaty
AFP – US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Glyn Davies speaks to journalists after …
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago
TEHRAN, Iran – A conservative Iranian legislator warned Saturday that
his country may pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty after
a U.N. resolution censuring Tehran — a move that could seriously
undermine world attempts to prevent Iran from developing atomic
weapons.
Iran's official news agency quoted a hardline political analyst who
made the same point, another indication the idea could be gaining
steam.
If Iran withdraws from the treaty, its nuclear program would no longer
be subject to oversight by the U.N. nuclear agency. That in turn would
be a significant blow to efforts to ensure that no enriched uranium is
diverted from use as fuel to warhead development.
The lawmaker's threat came a day after the board of the U.N.'s
International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution demanding
Tehran immediately stop building its newly revealed nuclear facility
near the holy city of Qom and freeze uranium enrichment.
"The parliament, in its first reaction to this illegal and politically-
motivated resolution, can consider the issue of withdrawing from the
NPT," Mohammad Karamirad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA
news agency, referring to the treaty. "The parliament ... (also) can
block the entry of IAEA inspectors to the country."
Karamirad, a senior lawmaker and member of the Iranian parliament's
national security committee, does not speak for the government but his
statements often reflect the government's thinking. His threat could
be a tactic to warn the West of possible consequences if it pursues
further action against Iran, such as strengthened sanctions.
Another hardline lawmaker, Hossein Ebrahimi, was quoted by IRNA as
saying that Iran's parliament will discuss the IAEA resolution on
Sunday and will make a decision on how to react.
Iran's parliament has issued similar warnings in the past, most
recently in 2006 when some lawmakers threatened to pull the country
out of the nonproliferation treaty during another time of increased
U.N. pressure over Tehran's nuclear program. Iran backed down, and the
government has said that it has no intention of withdrawing from the
treaty, which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and
weapons technology.
Iran's government insists its nuclear program is meant only for
peaceful purposes, though the U.S. and other Western nations suspect
Tehran is seeking to acquire atomic weapons.
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate to the U.N. nuclear
agency, was also defiant Saturday in the face of the agency's fresh
demands, saying on state television that Iran will limit its
cooperation with the U.N. watchdog to its treaty obligations and will
not cooperate beyond that.
"Our first reaction to this resolution is that they (the U.N. agency)
should not expect us to do what we did several times in the past few
months when we cooperated beyond our obligations to remove
ambiguities," Soltanieh said.
He added that the country's nuclear activities will not be interrupted
by resolutions from the U.N. nuclear agency's board, the U.N. Security
Council or even the threat of military strikes against the facilities.
Ali Shirzadian, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran,
said his agency his ready to proceed with its nuclear projects.
"Technically speaking, we are fully prepared to produce fuel required
for the Tehran reactor. To begin this, we are waiting for the order
from top authorities," Shirzadian told the government-run Borna news
agency.
Friday's resolution — and the resulting vote of the IAEA's 35-nation
decision-making board — were significant on several counts.
The resolution was approved by 25 members of the 35-nation board —
including the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany —
marking a rare measure of unity from the six world powers on Iran.
Moscow and Beijing have traditionally cautioned against efforts to
punish Iran for its defiance over its nuclear program, either
preventing new Security Council sanctions or watering down their
potency.
The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for defying a U.N. Security
Council ban on uranium enrichment — the source of both nuclear fuel
and the fissile core of warheads.
It also censured Iran for secretly building a uranium enrichment
facility, known as Fordo, and demanded that it immediately suspend
further construction.
The resolution noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm
that Tehran's nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful
uses, and expressed "serious concern" that Iranian stonewalling of an
IAEA probe means "the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's
nuclear program" cannot be excluded.
The Iranian news agency also quoted hardline political analyst Mahdi
Mohammadi as saying that the U.N. agency's resolution was forcing Iran
to reconsider its membership in the nonproliferation treaty.
"The attitude of the agency is gradually bringing Iran and the rest of
the developing nations to the conclusion that membership in NPT has no
benefit but damage and restriction. In this case, the question that
will be raised seriously is will continuation of this path serve
Iran's national interests?" IRNA quoted him as saying
drahcir
Book(s) and page numbers with quotes, please.
Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
> Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
>
> > > Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
>
> > > When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence and after
> > > which they behaved like demons. 1885 perhaps?
>
> > Get a credible history of Israel to make that determination for
> > yourself.
>
> But you are not going to comment based on your broad reading of the
> history of Palestine. Why not?
Primarily because it's an asinine question.
You can even use the "Old Historians"
> who created and perpetuated the myths of the creation of the Jewish
> State.
>
> > Apparently, the consensus is that Sachar is the best.
>
> I've read Sachar.
I say you haven't. I say you're lying. The reason? You've never ONCE
cited it, and it's the most widely accepted history of Israel.
Tell you what, let's put Sachar opposite Pappe and
> Shlaim and simply compare what they say issue by issue. I'm not at all
> concerned by that. For one thing Sachar wrote before the relevant
> archives were opened to historians.
Um, the most recent edition is 2007....
There is something about those
> archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate
> the fact that they were opened at all now don't you?
You know, H, they say masturbating on newsgroups will grow hair on
your computer keyboard....
>
> Try
>
> > it. It's funny - you spend your whole day posting nonsense to this
> > group, and claim to have read so much, yet you are a total ignoramus.
>
> Do I get to use your level of knowledge as my minimum benchmark?
H, I will guess the above is attempt to be clever. Problem is, it
makes no sense.
>
> > The reason, of course, is that you are an incorrigible liar - you've
> > read next to nothing about Israel, and certainly never a credible
> > history.
>
> I have certainly read Sachar.
No, you haven't. You're lying.
I read the local library's copy a year
> or two ago. I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
> it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
> line".
Lie after lie after lie. And I don't remember this challenge. Please
cite.
>
> > > > there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> > > > Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> > > > Jewish presence had to offer.
>
> > > So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
>
> > if that's what your poor, damaged jumble of neurons makes of my
> > statement, you're beyond help.
Ugh, more HHW blahblah below. I don't have time to waste with that.
Simple fact - you asked if I denied Zionism 20 lines after I stated a
fact about Zionism. You're senile, face it.
>
> Unfortunately, though my comment was straightforward and telling, it
> still confounded you. Zionism was and is a territorially aggressive
> ideology based on the premise that it was the *right* of Jews to take
> Palestine from its native people and that it would be implemented when
> the opportunity presented itself; to use lingo of their socialist
> milieu, when the correlation of forces was favorable to them. That
> opportunity came at the time of the British withdrawal and the UN
> Partition. The Zionists, most especially Ben-Gurion, made no bones
> about it in private.
>
> It's interesting that although the Jews in the early Yishuv pretty
> much kept their mouths shut about their ideological goals, the
> Palestinians caught on pretty early. They knew what was happening and
> what the future held for thim if they did nothing. This fueled the
> Arab revolts in the thirties which were defeated by the British. Even
> shortly before the british left the parties were face to face and the
> Jews were the first to strike with a carefully considered plan of
> expulsion which had been in gestation for ten years and had gone
> through four different formulations.
>
> I am sure no one reading this will fail
>
> > to notice that you have asked this question only a few lines below my
> > statement, quoted from above:
>
> > "The arab population of Palestine increased
> > dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism"
>
> I responded.
Yes, but asking if I deny the existence of zionism. That makes no
sense and is clearly the result of senility.
You didn't like it. And I'm continuing to respond. Pay
> attention.
>
>
>
> > You really must face the fact that you are alzheimic, H. If you fact
> > that reality, you'll fare better in what little time is left to you.
> > > Even today, just ask Arab residents of
>
> > > > Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
> > > > financial incentive.
>
> > > Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
> > > Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
> > > state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
> > > Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
>
> > Your question makes no sense. Every normal reader can perceive that
> > the point I am making is that Jewish Palestine, then Israel, was and
> > is a great place for arabs to live. It could have been so much better
> > if arabs hadn't listened to their silly leaders.
>
> How could the Arabs expect to live in this "great place" when they
> accurately understood that the plan of the Jews was to take the land
> for themselves? To make it Arabrein. Nothing has changed. A million
> were expelled pursuant to the plan justified by the ideology, your
> ideology not to make too fine a point of it. Will you take
> responsibility for what was done in its name?
Again, makes no sense. The arabs in Israel love it there. Your idiotic
question about expectations makes no sense. End of story. You are
flailing away without hope.
>
> > Poor, befuddled H. How do you get through your day?
>
> By routinely punching you up.
Pathetic masturbator. Disgusting.
Look, Ratner, you can't get away with
> the naked assertion that the Arabs were welcome in what you yourself
> describe as a "Jewish Palestine" and that somehow they lost their
> right to their ancient homeland because they didn't want to submit.
If you'd read a decent history of Israel instead of lying about having
done so, you wouldn't make such asinine statements. Jews were only
happy to live and work side by side with arabs, and that's how it
would have been if not for arab rabble rousers.
Of
> course they had a right to resist. Even a duty. Who can doubt it?
> Sixty percent of the people were non-Jewish in 1947-48 and that
> fraction could only get worse from the point of view of the European
> immigrants.
The partition plan took that percentage into account. Israel would
only have been comprised of jewish-majority areas had the plan been
accepted by arabs.
Welcome, indeed. Expulsion was the only way to make the
> ideological goal of a Jewish state work. Ben-Gurion took the path of a
> great crime against humanity, one he and his men had been planning for
> a long time. It's that crime and its sequellae in 1967 which is at the
> core of the dispute.
More tired blahblah from the lying ignoramus who has never read a
decent history of israel and then, like a child, has to lie about it.
You're an amazing liar, H. It's so easy for you. It never ceases to
amaze me.
RabbiJoekerr
> to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
the international community recognized as ours.
snip silly lies
you know it's pathetic the way fools like you try to sound intelligent
but aren't capable of using anything that remotely resembles logic or
truth.
Fish Supper
"RabbiJoekerr" <jokerso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c961c89-3eea-470b...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
the international community recognized as ours.
***
Is this the same international community whose resolutions you have flouted
more than all the other nations of earth combined?
You conveniently forget to mention that this area that the international
community recognises does NOT include the West Bank or Jerusalem. It does
NOT include the Golan Heights and it does NOT include southern Lebanon -
areas which Israel has illegally occupied.
Be honest for once in your life - the Zionists have no interest in 'living
in peace' until they have ethnically cleansed all the Palestinians from
Greater Israel. You have no intention of getting out of Jerusalem or the
West Bank - ever. You are war mongering, expansionist criminals. end of.
***
Fish Supper
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e9192be-764f-406a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
***
deflect, deny, lie - Zionism for Dummies.
And if Ico provided you with sources, quotes, page numbers, and every other
kind of proof your response would be to throw an infantile insult and run
away - it's what you do. It's what you did when I hung you out to dry on
your lies about the IDF not firing on ambulances, using WP against
civilians, using civilians as human shields and about half a dozen others
cases.
Deny your lies are lies and then, when they are shown to be lies, run away
whilst name calling.
***
There is something about those
> archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate
> the fact that they were opened at all now don't you?
You know, H, they say masturbating on newsgroups will grow hair on
your computer keyboard....
***
There it is, right on time - the boy can't answer and so throws a tantrum.
***
I read the local library's copy a year
> or two ago. I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
> it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
> line".
Lie after lie after lie. And I don't remember this challenge. Please
cite.
***
You don't seem to remember quite a few challenges, dick. I can recall
challenging you to answer a couple of dozen quoted sources which proved
Israeli war crimes - never heard a peep from you apart from your usual name
calling.
***
> How could the Arabs expect to live in this "great place" when they
> accurately understood that the plan of the Jews was to take the land
> for themselves? To make it Arabrein. Nothing has changed. A million
> were expelled pursuant to the plan justified by the ideology, your
> ideology not to make too fine a point of it. Will you take
> responsibility for what was done in its name?
Again, makes no sense. The arabs in Israel love it there.
***
You are Bull Connor and I claim my $5.
***
Your idiotic
question about expectations makes no sense. End of story. You are
flailing away without hope.
***
Agreed. He has no hope of making you see reason. As for making you look
stupid, however - mission accomplished.
If you'd read a decent history of Israel instead of lying about having
done so, you wouldn't make such asinine statements. Jews were only
happy to live and work side by side with arabs, and that's how it
would have been if not for arab rabble rousers.
***
You really believe that, don't you? Your willful ignorance is a force of
nature.
***
Of
> course they had a right to resist. Even a duty. Who can doubt it?
> Sixty percent of the people were non-Jewish in 1947-48 and that
> fraction could only get worse from the point of view of the European
> immigrants.
The partition plan took that percentage into account. Israel would
only have been comprised of jewish-majority areas had the plan been
accepted by arabs.
***
Oh, that and "had the arabs not been massacred and driven in panic from
their lands"
***
Welcome, indeed. Expulsion was the only way to make the
> ideological goal of a Jewish state work. Ben-Gurion took the path of a
> great crime against humanity, one he and his men had been planning for
> a long time. It's that crime and its sequellae in 1967 which is at the
> core of the dispute.
More tired blahblah from the lying ignoramus who has never read a
decent history of israel and then, like a child, has to lie about it.
You're an amazing liar, H. It's so easy for you. It never ceases to
amaze me.
***
deflect, lie, deny - deal with the point
***
It was a giant injustice and one which can not be
> justified by the previous history of Jews in Europe. One crime never
> justifies another. The subsequent one can always be prosecuted
> irrespective of whether the first one was.
>
> Why do you spurn your chance to settle for 78% of the entire country?
> That's very dangerous chutzpah. How is it that you think you are going
> to get away with it?
Ico, this is the Master Race we're talking about. You know? The ones with
the higher IQs - they're not going to let some raghead A-rabs stop them
taking 100% of The Land God Promised Them.
dsha...@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
> > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
> > > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
> > > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
> > > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
> On Nov 28, 9:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Total bullshit.
But funny!
>>The arab population of Palestine increased
> > dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
> > opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
> > countries.
On Nov 28, 11:12 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
> 1947-9
A million -- rotflol.
> Can't have those
> Arabs living a better life now can we?
They started doing just that after the advent of the ZIonist
Enterprise.
>>Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
> When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence
Never.
> > there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> > Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> > Jewish presence had to offer.
> So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
Azoy?
>> Even today, just ask Arab residents of
> > Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
> > financial incentive.
> Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
What "country" of "Palestine"? Palestine was never a country. And that
was not the question asked. The answer is, of course, that most of
them would not even given a large financial incentive. Especially
homosexual Palestinian Arabs.
> Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
> state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
> Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
Who would coin a senseless word like "Arabrein" from the very real
"Judenrein"? An ignorant antisemite, that's who.
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>>dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
>>>>opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
>>>>countries.
>>On Nov 28, 2:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
>>>1947-9 and 1967 to those surrounding Arab countries? Can't have those
>>>Arabs living a better life now can we?
In fact, the living standards of the fellahin of Palestine - and not
just Arab fellahin - showed a significant improvement as a result of
the various Zionist enterprises in Israel.
>On Nov 28, 2:39 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>Problem is, H, that you refuse to learn about the history of Israel
>>from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
>>the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
>>happened.
On Nov 28, 3:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Then why did Benny Morris spend three or four hundred pages describing
>them? Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
>Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
Apparently HHW has forgotten that this unfortunate lie of his was
settled some time ago. The "Don't you just love Benny Morris" first
appeared in the following post. Note the author:
"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. And today Benny Morris has that
access and can if he wishes supplement his earlier work. And besides,
all of the relevant data was not found in the IDF Archives."
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
A pity H has such a hard time grasping facts. Also, in that same
thread, H was knowledgeably citing Anita Shapira, or so it seemed;
that same Anita Shapira H was thanking me for introducing him to
several days ago.
One thing H has not forgotten, I'm sure, and that is that it's H
himself who "loves" authors -- Pappe, Sand, et autres -- before he
bothers to crack their books, if he ever does. In fact, for months on
end, when challenged to produce something from Pappe's scribblings, H
could produce nothing but Amazon.com reviews or sentences from Pappe
posted on line.
>>>Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
>>>When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence
Never.
>>Get a credible history of Israel to make that determination for
>>yourself.
>
>But you are not going to comment based on your broad reading of the
>history of Palestine. Why not?
Why should he? H certainly doesn't.
>You can even use the "Old Historians"
lol. Guess who coined that one before H coopted it.
>>Apparently, the consensus is that Sachar is the best.
Dated, but still the best and most detailed.
>I've read Sachar.
H hasn't, and H himself give the lie to his false claim that he has.
>Tell you what, let's put Sachar opposite Pappe and
>Shlaim and simply compare what they say issue by issue. I'm not at all
>concerned by that.
That ist certain.
>For one thing Sachar wrote before the relevant
>archives were opened to historians.
Who says the so-called "New Historians" made use of those so-called
"opened" archives? Sachar's list of sources takes up over 40 pages.
And for another thing, Sachar did what none of the so-called "New
Historians" ever thought -- he used a vast number of Arab sources. The
so-called "New Historians" did not.
>There is something about those
>archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate
>the fact that they were opened at all now don't you?
Probably not.
>>The reason, of course, is that you are an incorrigible liar - you've
>>read next to nothing about Israel, and certainly never a credible
>>history.
>I have certainly read Sachar. I read the local library's copy a year
>or two ago.
Copy of what? Sachar wrote extensively on the subject Pappe barely
touches. In fact, none of the so-called "New Historians" have anything
to say that Sachar didn't say first.
>I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
>it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
>line".
This is the first I've seen of this so-called "challenge". And the
fact that H offers to compare Sachar with Pappe "line by line" is what
gives the lie to H's claim that he's read Sachar.
Naturally, H doesn't say which of Sachar's extensive writings he's
read.
>Zionism was and is a territorially aggressive
>ideology based on the premise that it was the *right* of Jews to take
>Palestine from its native people and that it would be implemented when
>the opportunity presented itself;
Rubbish. Der Juden-Staat and the platform of the First Zionist
Congress state otherwise.
>It's interesting that although the Jews in the early Yishuv pretty
>much kept their mouths shut about their ideological goals, the
>Palestinians caught on pretty early.
At the time of the "early Yishuv" -- whatever that may be, and I'm
sure H doesn't mean the Yishuv HaYashan -- the only "Palestinians", as
described by Immanuel Kant and others, were European Jews.
The Arabs were interested in Syria and Egypt -- not southern Syria, as
they called "Palestine" then.
>They knew what was happening and
>what the future held for thim if they did nothing.
In the days of H's "early Yishuv" -- or the Yishuv HaYashan -- that's
absolute rubbish. The majority were illiterate fellahin living in
villages.
>This fueled the
>Arab revolts in the thirties which were defeated by the British.
Definitely H hasn't read Sachar.
>Even
>shortly before the british left the parties were face to face and the
>Jews were the first to strike with a carefully considered plan of
>expulsion which had been in gestation for ten years and had gone
>through four different formulations.
rotflol
And that carefully considered Jewish plan was executed with such
efficiency that the Arabs killed more Jews than vice versa in the
first four months folowing the partition vote, and British authorties
were convinced that "the Jews have bought it" and that "the Arabs will
have no trouble taking over the entire country."
>>I am sure no one reading this will fail
>>to notice that you have asked this question only a few lines below my
>>statement, quoted from above:
>>"The arab population of Palestine increased
>>dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism"
>I responded. You didn't like it. And I'm continuing to respond. Pay
>attention.
lol
Did either of you bother to check the history of Ottoman Palestine in
the 19thC?
>>>>Even today, just ask Arab residents of
>>>>Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
>>>>financial incentive.
>
>>>Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
They have no country, "Palestine", and never had one. Unless you count
that portion of Palestine now known as Jordan. Arafat and his goons
certainly did in the late 1960s and early 1970s -- until the late king
Husayn's army convinced them to change their mind, along with their
place of residence.
>>>Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
>>>state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
>>>Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
>>Your question makes no sense. Every normal reader can perceive that
>>the point I am making is that Jewish Palestine, then Israel, was and
>>is a great place for arabs to live. It could have been so much better
>>if arabs hadn't listened to their silly leaders.
>How could the Arabs expect to live in this "great place" when they
>accurately understood that the plan of the Jews was to take the land
>for themselves? To make it Arabrein.
That wasn't the original plan, nor is it. The Jews were willing to
live alongside Arabs and others, for example, Muslim Druze. The Arabs
preferred the Nazis and the Nazi solution.
>Nothing has changed. A million
>were expelled pursuant to the plan justified by the ideology
Bullshit.
>>Poor, befuddled H. How do you get through your day?
>By routinely punching you up.
Alas, that poor H can't face facts.
>Look, Ratner, you can't get away with
>the naked assertion that the Arabs were welcome in what you yourself
>describe as a "Jewish Palestine" and that somehow they lost their
>right to their ancient homeland because they didn't want to submit.
Sure he can. For one, the Arabs' "ancient homeland" was never
Palestine. The Arabs themselves admitted as much. For another, Arabs
were certainly welcome in Jewish areas; it was repeated Arab violence
and massacre of Jews which altered that.
>Of course they had a right to resist. Even a duty. Who can doubt it?
Antisemites like H, who deny Jews that same "right" and "duty".
Incidentally, "right" and "duty" are also repeated in the following:
"It is a national (qawmi) DUTY to bring up individual Palestinians in
an Arab revolutionary manner."
"The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and
firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to...assert their
RIGHT to Palestine and to exercise their RIGHT to...sovereignty over
it."
"The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national
(qawmi) DUTY..and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine."
"The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the
state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of
time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people
and its natural RIGHT in their homeland."
"The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of RIGHT and
justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate
movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations..The
Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom,
sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and the RIGHT of
peoples to exercise them."
This last is just too funny.
>Sixty percent of the people were non-Jewish in 1947-48 and that
>fraction could only get worse from the point of view of the European
>immigrants.
So what? What was the percentage of Jews in Israel in 47-49 CE, and
what was the percentage of Jews in Israel in 109-110 CE?
>Ben-Gurion took the path of a
>great crime against humanity, one he and his men had been planning for
>a long time. It's that crime and its sequellae in 1967 which is at the
>core of the dispute.
No, it isn't.
>It was a giant injustice and one which can not be
>justified by the previous history of Jews in Europe. One crime never
>justifies another. The subsequent one can always be prosecuted
>irrespective of whether the first one was.
Unless one is a Palestine Arab. Then one is free to commit all manner
of crimes with impunity.
>Why do you spurn your chance to settle for 78% of the entire country?
>That's very dangerous chutzpah. How is it that you think you are going
>to get away with it?
78% of Palestine? So, who's offering this large chunk of Jordan to
Israel? If Israel accepts, dare I offer to sell them a lot of shares
in a certain bridge?
Deborah
dsha...@yahoo.com
>>>from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
>>>the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
>>>happened.
>On Nov 28, 6:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Then why did Benny Morris spend three or four hundred pages describing
>>them?
On Nov 28, 3:42 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>Book(s) and page numbers with quotes, please.
Don't hold your breath. It's obvious that, in addition to never having
read Sachar, H hasn't read Morris either.
>
>>Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
>>Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
<yawn>
Apparently HHW has forgotten that this unfortunate lie of his was
settled some time ago. The "Don't you just love Benny Morris" first
appeared in the following post. Note the author:
"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. And today Benny Morris has that
access and can if he wishes supplement his earlier work. And besides,
all of the relevant data was not found in the IDF Archives."
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
A pity H has such a hard time grasping facts. Also, in that same
thread, H was knowledgeably citing Anita Shapira, or so it seemed;
that same Anita Shapira H was thanking me for introducing him to
several days ago.
One thing H has not forgotten, I'm sure, and that is that it's H
himself who "loves" authors -- Pappe, Sand, et autres -- before he
bothers to crack their books, if he ever does. In fact, for months on
end, when challenged to produce something from Pappe's scribblings, H
could produce nothing but Amazon.com reviews or sentences from Pappe
posted on line.
I'm sure that if H ever bothers to produce a "quote" from Sachar, to
prove he's actually read the book, it won't be hard to find where he
actually got it.
>>>Get a credible history of Israel to make that determination for
>>>yourself.
>
>>But you are not going to comment based on your broad reading of the
>>history of Palestine. Why not?
>
>Primarily because it's an asinine question.
It's a deflection.
>>You can even use the "Old Historians"
>>who created and perpetuated the myths of the creation of the Jewish
>>State.
lol
Guess where H got the term "Old Historians" -- and, also, failed to
note that it was a tongue-in-cheek term.
>>>Apparently, the consensus is that Sachar is the best.
Dated, but still the best and most detailed. And it's obvious that the
so-called "New Historians" have little to say that Sachar didn't say
first.
>>I've read Sachar.
>
>I say you haven't. I say you're lying.
I'll back you on both.
>The reason? You've never ONCE
>cited it, and it's the most widely accepted history of Israel.
That's not the reason I'd give. H gives the reasons himself.
>>Tell you what, let's put Sachar opposite Pappe and
>>Shlaim and simply compare what they say issue by issue. I'm not at all
>>concerned by that. For one thing Sachar wrote before the relevant
>>archives were opened to historians.
That's one of the reasons H gives which shows he hasn't read Sachar.
We're talking about Sachar's History of Israel, Vols 1 & 2, I
presume.
>Um, the most recent edition is 2007....
>>There is something about those
>>archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate
>>the fact that they were opened at all now don't you?
>
>You know, H, they say masturbating on newsgroups will grow hair on
>your computer keyboard....
I thought it was supposed to make you go blind, or nuts.
>>>It's funny - you spend your whole day posting nonsense to this
>>>group, and claim to have read so much, yet you are a total ignoramus.
>
>>Do I get to use your level of knowledge as my minimum benchmark?
>
>H, I will guess the above is attempt to be clever. Problem is, it
>makes no sense.
I saw it earlier, and it still makes no sense. I presume it's H's
notion of an insult.
>
>>>The reason, of course, is that you are an incorrigible liar - you've
>>>read next to nothing about Israel, and certainly never a credible
>>>history.
>
>>I have certainly read Sachar.
>
>No, you haven't. You're lying.
Of course he is. Just as he lied about having read Pappe and Shlaim.
Then he forgot himself, and posted that he had them on order.
>>I read the local library's copy a year or two ago.
Yeah, right. Just as H posted last year about what Anita Shapira, then
thanked me a few days ago for having introduced him to her.
>>said I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
>>it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
>>line".
Yeah, right.
>Lie after lie after lie. And I don't remember this challenge.
Neither do I, but then, I don't read all of H's ramblings. But that
line's another clue that H hasn't read Sachar's History of Israel --
or anything else by Sachar. Comparing it "line by line" with PAPPE?
It's like comparing War and Peace "line by line" with Noddy Meets
Father Christmas.
>Please cite.
You're asking H for a cite? I trust you won't wait with bated breath
for his response.
>>>>>there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
>>>>>Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
>>>>>Jewish presence had to offer.
>
>>>>So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
>
>>>if that's what your poor, damaged jumble of neurons makes of my
>>>statement, you're beyond help.
>
>Ugh, more HHW blahblah below. I don't have time to waste with that.
>Simple fact - you asked if I denied Zionism 20 lines after I stated a
>fact about Zionism. You're senile, face it.
The problem is that H just gets himself caught over and over in the
tangled web he weaves. A good reason to stick to the facts, rather
than paste jobs from dubious blogsters.
>>Expulsion was the only way to make the
>>ideological goal of a Jewish state work. Ben-Gurion took the path of a
>>great crime against humanity, one he and his men had been planning for
>>a long time.
Balls. The fact is that Ben-Gurion and "his men" -- which included
only a portion of the so-called "Zionist leadership" continued to plan
for a significant number of Arabs in the country. What they didn't
plan for was the absorption of almost a million Jews expelled from
their ancient homes in Arab lands, with all their property stripped
from them.
>>It's that crime and its sequellae in 1967 which is at the
>>core of the dispute.
>
>More tired blahblah from the lying ignoramus who has never read a
>decent history of israel and then, like a child, has to lie about it.
>You're an amazing liar, H. It's so easy for you. It never ceases to
>amaze me.
What never ceases to amaze me is how H continues to lie, after he's
caught in his lies over and over again. But ignorance is bliss, I
suppose, to some, and if so, H is one of those who must be positively
orgasmic.
Deborah
cornholio
in all
actuality, is.
drahcir
> >>On Nov 28, 2:39 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>Problem is, H, that you refuse to learn about the history of Israel
> >>>from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
> >>>the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
> >>>happened.
> >On Nov 28, 6:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >>Then why did Benny Morris spend three or four hundred pages describing
> >>them?
>
> On Nov 28, 3:42 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >Book(s) and page numbers with quotes, please.
>
> Don't hold your breath. It's obvious that, in addition to never having
> read Sachar, H hasn't read Morris either.
Here's a hilarious quote that came up when I did a search with HHW as
author for the word "Sachar":
"I've read a couple of the older histories of
Israel (Sachar, perhaps)."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/beae41c9865486a5
Is that the funniest thing you've ever read? He's read a couple of
histories, and thinks PERHAPS one of them may have been Sachar. Either
he's not a very good liar or he's so senile that he read a 1000 page
history and isn't sure who wrote it. Is there a third possibility I am
overlooking?
>
>
>
> >>Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
> >>Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
>
> <yawn>
> Apparently HHW has forgotten that this unfortunate lie of his was
> settled some time ago. The "Don't you just love Benny Morris" first
> appeared in the following post. Note the author:
>
> "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. And today Benny Morris has that
> access and can if he wishes supplement his earlier work. And besides,
> all of the relevant data was not found in the IDF Archives."
> 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
coaste...@yahoo.com
Think before you jump to conclusions. It was a long time ago, Deb.
Thirty years. I simply didn't recall who wrote them. But later I
checked out the 1977 Sachar history and recognized it. Frankly I
thought the man was deceased but he still lives and has revised and
updated the '77 book in paperback as of 2007, apparently in
recognition the thirtieth anniversary of publication. I'm very
interested in what he's added and/or revised.You should be too because
how he has dealt with the revelations begun by your lost love, Benny
Morris, will be important to you. Whatever they are you will have to
accept them! By the way, It's also interesting that he is an
American, not an Israeli, and came from St. Louis, not New York, and
has worked in Washington, not Brooklyn, and describes the Orthodox as
a "millstone" around Israel's neck.
So, thank you for reviving my interest in Professor Sachar. Just
think, we may be marching forward together in search of the truth in a
format which neither of us will seek to deny!
drahcir
Are you so flustered by my citing your "perhaps" that you're again
having trouble keeping straight to whom you are replying, you stupid,
senile oaf? It's me, drahcir, remember? DRAHCIR!!
And below, we have the famous HHW dance - pointless blahblah that
serves no purpose other than to flail around and try to explain his
"perhaps" - yet more hilarious lies to extricate himself from a
previous, blundering lie.
> Thirty years. I simply didn't recall who wrote them. But later I
> checked out the 1977 Sachar history and recognized it. Frankly I
> thought the man was deceased but he still lives and has revised and
> updated the '77 book in paperback as of 2007, apparently in
> recognition the thirtieth anniversary of publication. I'm very
> interested in what he's added and/or revised.You should be too because
> how he has dealt with the revelations begun by your lost love, Benny
> Morris, will be important to you. Whatever they are you will have to
> accept them! By the way, It's also interesting that he is an
> American, not an Israeli, and came from St. Louis, not New York, and
> has worked in Washington, not Brooklyn, and describes the Orthodox as
> a "millstone" around Israel's neck.
>
> So, thank you for reviving my interest in Professor Sachar. Just
> think, we may be marching forward together in search of the truth in a
> format which neither of us will seek to deny!
Sheesh, what an asshole...
coaste...@yahoo.com
Naw, I'm talking to both of you. Just doing it efficiently. I'm now in
the process of predicting what, to your mutual chagrin, you may find
in the great Dr. Sachar's *revised and expanded* history of Israel,
such as reflections of the following:
"Perhaps my only criticism is that it is somewhat one-sided. It deals
with Arab issues well, but since it is a history of Israel, it focuses
more on the Israeli side of things. It certainly is not a book about
the emotional trials of the refugees -- instead it is meant as an
objective documentation of fact. People looking for an op/ed piece
will not find it here. It does, however, manage to present the major
mistakes Israel has made as well as many of the shocking atrocities
committed in the name of the Jewish state."
I can't tell you, Richard, how much I appreciate your tip about the
3rd Edition of Sachar's history coming out in 2007. You see, this new
edition will have to bridge the gap between the old and the new
historians. Thank you also for providing us with another example of
your "highly intelligent" status in this world.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Face it, Ratner, you can't handle me. You can't handle Fish Supper.
You are neither smart nor well read enough. Both of us run over you at
will. It will only get worse. Eventually they will bench you. Perhaps
you should reflect on the meaning of events in the Middle East instead
of simply rehearsing the hostility to the goy world you learned fifty
years ago in shul or wherever.
drahcir
H, you poor, lost soul, you're now replying to yourself. Go sleep it
off.
drahcir
Does your incessant masturbation make you feel better, H?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> the international community recognized as ours.
That was 55% of Palestine. The Palestinians will settle now for 22%.
Why do you keep oppressing them?
>
> snip silly lies
>
> you know it's pathetic the way fools like you try to sound intelligent
> but aren't capable of using anything that remotely resembles logic or
> truth.
An example, please?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:15 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> > No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> > the international community recognized as ours.
>
> That was 55% of Palestine. The Palestinians will settle now for 22%.
Got a cite for that?
RabbiJoekerr
> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c961c89-3eea-470b...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> the international community recognized as ours.
>
Yaaawn... pathetic dodge but typical for your type!
coaste...@yahoo.com
The title is paraphrased as "The Origins of the Palestinian Refugee
Problem." It made his reputation as a "New Historian". It's only in
more recent times that he has pulled in his horns to protect his
professorship.
> Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
>
> > Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
>
> > > > Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
>
> > > > When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence and after
> > > > which they behaved like demons. 1885 perhaps?
>
> > > Get a credible history of Israel to make that determination for
> > > yourself.
>
> > But you are not going to comment based on your broad reading of the
> > history of Palestine. Why not?
>
> Primarily because it's an asinine question.
No, no Missy. It's because you can't defend your own words. All you
can do is lash out at your favorite messenger.
>
> You can even use the "Old Historians"
>
> > who created and perpetuated the myths of the creation of the Jewish
> > State.
>
> > > Apparently, the consensus is that Sachar is the best.
>
> > I've read Sachar.
>
> I say you haven't. I say you're lying. The reason? You've never ONCE
> cited it, and it's the most widely accepted history of Israel
No, I didn't cite it. Why do you suppose that was? But I probably will
in the future. It's been revised and takes the history up through the
recent Lebanon War. I'm very happy to hear you say that it is "most
widely accepted".
> Tell you what, let's put Sachar opposite Pappe and
>
> > Shlaim and simply compare what they say issue by issue. I'm not at all
> > concerned by that. For one thing Sachar wrote before the relevant
> > archives were opened to historians.
>
> Um, the most recent edition is 2007....
Thank G-D you told me this!
> There is something about those archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate the fact that they were opened at all now > don't you?
>
> You know, H, they say masturbating on newsgroups will grow hair on
> your computer keyboard....
Punching you up adds hair to the chest.
> > Try
>
> > > it. It's funny - you spend your whole day posting nonsense to this
> > > group, and claim to have read so much, yet you are a total ignoramus.
>
> > Do I get to use your level of knowledge as my minimum benchmark?
>
> H, I will guess the above is attempt to be clever. Problem is, it
> makes no sense.
Oh yes it does. You're just not very smart, Richard.
> > > The reason, of course, is that you are an incorrigible liar - you've
> > > read next to nothing about Israel, and certainly never a credible
> > > history.
>
> > I have certainly read Sachar.
>
> No, you haven't. You're lying.
>
> I read the local library's copy a year
>
> > or two ago. I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
> > it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
> > line".
>
> Lie after lie after lie. And I don't remember this challenge. Please
> cite.
Look it up. You don't waste my time.
> > > > > there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> > > > > Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> > > > > Jewish presence had to offer.
>
> > > > So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
>
> > > if that's what your poor, damaged jumble of neurons makes of my
> > > statement, you're beyond help.
>
> Ugh, more HHW blahblah below. I don't have time to waste with that.
> Simple fact - you asked if I denied Zionism 20 lines after I stated a
> fact about Zionism. You're senile, face it.
The point was that you were in effect ignoring the Zionism of the
early generations. They were not about to offer to share Palestine and
to join into one happy, Semitic family. No, no, that wasn't their
intent. It wasn't consistent with their ideology. Like Deb, you ought
to think about what I say before flying off the handle.
> > Unfortunately, though my comment was straightforward and telling, it
> > still confounded you. Zionism was and is a territorially aggressive
> > ideology based on the premise that it was the *right* of Jews to take
> > Palestine from its native people and that it would be implemented when
> > the opportunity presented itself; to use lingo of their socialist
> > milieu, when the correlation of forces was favorable to them. That
> > opportunity came at the time of the British withdrawal and the UN
> > Partition. The Zionists, most especially Ben-Gurion, made no bones
> > about it in private.
>
> > It's interesting that although the Jews in the early Yishuv pretty
> > much kept their mouths shut about their ideological goals, the
> > Palestinians caught on pretty early. They knew what was happening and
> > what the future held for thim if they did nothing. This fueled the
> > Arab revolts in the thirties which were defeated by the British. Even
> > shortly before the British left the parties were face to face and the
Anyone can conclude without supporting argument that something makes
no sense. And recently you've been reduced to doing that constantly. I
really wish you people would find an educated and thoughtful person to
deal with your critics here. I long for serious, candid discussion of
these issues with honest intellectuals.
> > > Poor, befuddled H. How do you get through your day?
>
> > By routinely punching you up.
>
> Pathetic masturbator. Disgusting.
Listen, listen. You've been in the corner over-matched by a better
boxer ever since we met. By unreflective pursuit of a dishonorable
strategy you've permitted me utilize YOU as a foil to gain attention
for my issues. You've lost a political struggle however tiny it might
be in the overall perspective. Now, how can you escape this situation
and at the same time behave in an attractively honorable fashion?
Focus now. I'm going to tell you how. Telling the truth about Israeli
history in its broader European context is the obvious starting point.
It's naive to think you can suppress a subject that huge when the
American intelligentsia is no longer afraid of being labeled by
Zionist libel. Again, think about it. The way to deal with a man like
me would be to acknowledge the history of Israeli aggression and
brutality, to put it into a more favorable perspective, to demonstrate
the necessity of it as a practical matter from the perspective of the
founders and then to argue forthrightly that it's shame about the
Palestinians but it simply had to be done. Pogroms, Holocaust, etc.,
etc. And that surely the Palestinians can have their rump state on 22%
of their homeland and reparations too. We all need to cut our losses
and strike a deal.
Think of where that would put your opponents, immediately back on the
defensive. Suddenly, instead of our proving that the Israelis have
been sons of bitches over and over again, the issue would become
defense of a unique and overwhelming Jewish moral and historical
claim. It would change the terms of the debate. Jewish history would
become an asset for you. You'd be able to utilize the terrible aspects
of the European experience and its culminating Holocaust overtly
instead of covertly. After all, you know what drives Zionism. It's
more than a desire for a picturesque vacation home in the Middle East.
Yet you are inhibited about playing your strongest card. Were I you I
might even be arguing that one can combine respect for law with an
understanding that at times, maybe once in a couple of centuries,
situations arise in which it simply must be set aside in order achieve
natural, commonly understood justice. After all isn't that the
position you're in anyway?
> Look, Ratner, you can't get away with
>
> > the naked assertion that the Arabs were welcome in what you yourself
> > describe as a "Jewish Palestine" and that somehow they lost their
> > right to their ancient homeland because they didn't want to submit.
>
> If you'd read a decent history of Israel instead of lying about having
> done so, you wouldn't make such asinine statements. Jews were only
> happy to live and work side by side with arabs, and that's how it
> would have been if not for arab rabble rousers.
Blaming victims is bad form. You need some way to show that you feel
compassion for all victims, Jewish and Palestinians. A new form of
humanism is your salvation.
> Of
>
> > course they had a right to resist. Even a duty. Who can doubt it?
> > Sixty percent of the people were non-Jewish in 1947-48 and that
> > fraction could only get worse from the point of view of the European
> > immigrants.
>
> The partition plan took that percentage into account. Israel would
> only have been comprised of jewish-majority areas had the plan been
> accepted by arabs.
Actually, the forty percent Jewish minority would have taken 55% of
the land and both major ports. That was another reason it was
rejected.
> Welcome, indeed. Expulsion was the only way to make the ideological goal of a Jewish state work. Ben-Gurion took the path of a
> > great crime against humanity, one he and his men had been planning for
> > a long time. It's that crime and its sequellae in 1967 which are at the
> > core of the dispute.
>
> More tired blahblah from the lying ignoramus who has never read a
> decent history of israel and then, like a child, has to lie about it.
> You're an amazing liar, H. It's so easy for you. It never ceases to
> amaze me.
I've given you some good advice above, Ratner. It's doubtful that your
personal ego and arrogance will let you even think about it. But then,
a thinker you're not. Look what I'm doing to you below:
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
>
> Face it, Ratner, you can't handle me. You can't handle Fish Supper.
> You are neither smart nor well read enough. Both of us run over you at
> will. It will only get worse. Eventually they will bench you. Perhaps
> you should reflect on the meaning of events in the Middle East instead
> of simply rehearsing the hostility to the goy world you learned fifty
> years ago in shul or wherever.
No so far all you've done is run in circles and make a fool of
yourself. Richard owns you!
RabbiJoekerr
keep running in circles dummy! Watching Richard humiliate you with
facts and real cites is hilarious!
RabbiJoekerr
> On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 8:15 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> > > No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> > > the international community recognized as ours.
>
> > That was 55% of Palestine. The Palestinians will settle now for 22%.
>
> Got a cite for that?
>
claim- the Palestinians refuse any settlement bwahahahar talk about a
worthless retard iconotard just keeps digging himself in deeper
bwahahahar!
drahcir
That answer makes no sense. You were supposed to cite books and page
numbers, instead you say something about paraphrasing a title. Is
there anyone in the group who speaks Alzheimer? I think the above is
just what happens when a damaged brain is put under too much pressure
- it starts replying to the wrong people and making nonsense replies.
It would be so much easier if you would just quit lying, H. You've
never read a book of Morris. That is clear as day. You tried to bluff
with "three or four hundred pages", and all it took to make you fall
apart was asking for a cite. Easy as pie.
>
> > Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
>
> > > Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
>
> > > > > Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
>
> > > > > When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence and after
> > > > > which they behaved like demons. 1885 perhaps?
>
> > > > Get a credible history of Israel to make that determination for
> > > > yourself.
>
> > > But you are not going to comment based on your broad reading of the
> > > history of Palestine. Why not?
>
> > Primarily because it's an asinine question.
>
> No, no Missy. It's because you can't defend your own words. All you
> can do is lash out at your favorite messenger.
Yes, H. It's an asinine question. However, if you want, you can find
an answer by googling [arab violence british mandate Palestine]. This
is from the first result:
"In the spring of 1920, spring of 1921 and summer of 1929, Arab
nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the
Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in
Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa."
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
Think you can handle it from here, or do you need further assistance?
>
>
> > You can even use the "Old Historians"
>
> > > who created and perpetuated the myths of the creation of the Jewish
> > > State.
>
> > > > Apparently, the consensus is that Sachar is the best.
>
> > > I've read Sachar.
>
> > I say you haven't. I say you're lying. The reason? You've never ONCE
> > cited it, and it's the most widely accepted history of Israel
>
> No, I didn't cite it. Why do you suppose that was? But I probably will
> in the future.
No, you won't. You can't cite what you didn't read and don't own.
It's been revised and takes the history up through the
> recent Lebanon War. I'm very happy to hear you say that it is "most
> widely accepted".
You pretend you are informing me of the revision because you are off
your rocker.
>
> > Tell you what, let's put Sachar opposite Pappe and
>
> > > Shlaim and simply compare what they say issue by issue. I'm not at all
> > > concerned by that. For one thing Sachar wrote before the relevant
> > > archives were opened to historians.
>
> > Um, the most recent edition is 2007....
>
> Thank G-D you told me this!
H, for pete's sake, you need to look in the mirror. You knew nothing
of the revision until you read it in my post.
>
> > There is something about those archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate the fact that they were opened at all now > don't you?
>
> > You know, H, they say masturbating on newsgroups will grow hair on
> > your computer keyboard....
>
> Punching you up adds hair to the chest.
Keep fantasizing, it'll keep your blood pressure down.
Even more blahblah below to explain what "the point" was of accusing
me of denying zionism 20 lines after I cite it. Pathetic.
Oy, if that's what lets you get through your day, you just go ahead
and post it. Unbelievable amount of HHWBabble below, must go now,
tah!
dsharavi
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
[snip loads of facts which H can't be bothered to address]
>Face it, Ratner, you can't handle me. You can't handle Fish Supper.
>You are neither smart nor well read enough. Both of us run over you at
>will. It will only get worse. Eventually they will bench you. Perhaps
>you should reflect on the meaning of events in the Middle East instead
>of simply rehearsing the hostility to the goy world you learned fifty
>years ago in shul or wherever.
How predictable H is when caught with his pants down and his blatant
lies exposed.
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>>>Problem is, H, that you refuse to learn about the history of Israel
>>>>>from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
>>>>>the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
>>>>>happened.
>>>On Nov 28, 6:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Then why did Benny Morris spend three or four hundred pages describing
>>>>them?
>>On Nov 28, 3:42 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>Book(s) and page numbers with quotes, please.
>On Nov 29, 1:50 am, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com>wrote:>
>>Don't hold your breath. It's obvious that, in addition to never having
>>read Sachar, H hasn't read Morris either.
On Nov 29, 9:22 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>Here's a hilarious quote that came up when I did a search with HHW as
>author for the word "Sachar":
>"I've read a couple of the older histories of
>Israel (Sachar, perhaps)."
>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/beae41c9865486a5
>Is that the funniest thing you've ever read?
No, H's catalogue of his reading material is even funnier:
"Sigh, I've read Shlaim and quoted him here. I've read Pappe and
quoted
him here. I've read Benny Morris about whom you once inadvisably
exclaimed something like: "Don't you just love Benny Morris?" That
was
before you knew that he, like Pappe, is considered a "New Historian,"
i.e., a revisionist. I've quoted him here. I've read a wonderful book
about the first generation of Israelis and their leaders the name and
title of which escape me now and it's back in the library. I've read
George Shultz's autobiography and President Carter's book. I've read
hundreds articles by journalists and scholars about the Arab/Israeli
conflict over the years. I've read a couple of the older histories of
Israel (Sachar, perhaps). I've read Dayan's memoir. I've read M &
Walt
and Pappe. I've followed the conflict for forty years in journalism
and scholarly journals such as Foreign Affairs, the latter of which
I've read consistently that whole time . I've even read Leon Uris."
This was made the same day H also posted that:
"I'm working from Palestine Remembered."
and
"Deborah, they are simply copied and pasted from Palestine
Remembered, a very reputable site. It's one which you, personally,
should emulate. You could, perhaps, improve your scholarly ethics."
That, too, is pretty funny.
This was around the time H had spent eleven months evading my request
for him to back his claim that SCR 242 required Israel to return land
to the "Palestinians" by simply pointing to the provision -- 1, 2, 3,
or 4 -- which required that of Israel. Of course, he never did, and
instead spent months and lots of bandwidth swishing around the
subject. And of course, it's because he could NOT back his claim.
And note his parroted refrain of one of his other false claims - that
I "exclaimed something like: 'Don't you just love Benny Morris?' I've
proven several times who it was who actually made that claim. Since H
keeps forgetting, here it is again:
"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. And today Benny Morris has that
access and can if he wishes supplement his earlier work. And besides,
all of the relevant data was not found in the IDF Archives."
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
Note that in the same thread, H was knowledgeably citing Anita
Shapira, or so he made it seem -- the same Anita Shapira H was
thanking me for introducing him to several days ago.
>He's read a couple of
>histories, and thinks PERHAPS one of them may have been Sachar. Either
>he's not a very good liar or he's so senile that he read a 1000 page
>history and isn't sure who wrote it. Is there a third possibility I am
>overlooking?
Put it simply: like the liar Alan Hart, whose screed somebody,
probably H, posted quite recently, H uses "the oldest trick in the
book--pretending to know more" than he does. That may work for some,
but not with anyone who knows the subject. In short, he lies.
Make no mistake, drahcir - H does know his stuff on a number of
subjects. Someone (we know who) is certain, and I'll agree with the
opinion of a USC prof on that. It's just this particular subject H
does NOT know, does not want to know, is too lazy to educate himself,
and prefers to lie about it because that's easier for him than
confronting the fact that he's wrong.
If H had actually read any of those scholarly tomes (which excludes
Pappe, Waltsheimer, Dayan, and Leon, of course) he claims to have
read, it stands to reason he might have quoted some, yes? All he's
"quoted" from any of them are the standard coprolitic bits he picked
up from blogster op-eds and crap dump sites.
That still leaves out a mort of other books on the subject. And, like
the so-called "New Historians", it's obvious H never troubled himself
with any Arab sources.
Any questions?
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>>>>>Problem is, H, that you refuse to learn about the history of Israel
>>>>>>>from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
>>>>>>>the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
>>>>>>>happened.
>>>>>On Nov 28, 6:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>Then why did Benny Morris spend three or four hundred pages describing
>>>>>>them?
He didn't, and if H had actually read Morris, he would have known
that. In fact, Morris wasn't even the one who "uncovered" "evidence"
that there had been "expulsions" of Palestine Arabs. Sachar mentioned
that several times in his history, and so did Dan Kurzman in his, and
if H had read either, instead of merely claiming he had, he would have
known that.
>>>>>>Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
>>>>>>Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
>>>On Nov 29, 1:50 am, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>On Nov 29, 1:17 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Think before you jump to conclusions. It was a long time ago, Deb.
On Nov 29, 10:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>Are you so flustered by my citing your "perhaps" that you're again
>having trouble keeping straight to whom you are replying, you stupid,
>senile oaf? It's me, drahcir, remember? DRAHCIR!!
Evidently so. Possibly he's also flustered at the reminder that it was
he himself who posted the "Don't you just love Benny Morris" comment
-- see above -- which he subsequently, and frequently, ascribed to me.
Along with his false claim that I made a racist remark about Al
Sharpton, for which he never apologised.
>And below, we have the famous HHW dance - pointless blahblah that
>serves no purpose other than to flail around and try to explain his
>"perhaps" - yet more hilarious lies to extricate himself from a
>previous, blundering lie.
He should save himself the trouble and simply acknowledge it, rather
than indulging in his stupid shuffle-n-jive routine. Better yet, he
should refrain from lying in the first place.
>>Thirty years. I simply didn't recall who wrote them. But later I
>>checked out the 1977 Sachar history and recognized it.
Did he, now. No one else would have recognized the 1977 Sachar
history, mainly because there wasn't any 1977 Sachar history.
>>Frankly I
>>thought the man was deceased but he still lives and has revised and
>>updated the '77 book in paperback as of 2007, apparently in
>>recognition the thirtieth anniversary of publication.
A fact which became known to H only after drachir told him so.
>>I'm very
>>interested in what he's added and/or revised.
Hah.
>>You should be too because
>>how he has dealt with the revelations begun by your lost love, Benny
>>Morris, will be important to you.
<yawn> H has apparently forgotten that this "lost love" drek is
entirely of his own execretion, like H's comment "Don't you just love
Benny Morris" --
"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. And
today Benny Morris has that access and can if he wishes
supplement his earlier work."
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
>>Whatever they are you will have to
>>accept them! By the way, It's also interesting that he is an
>>American, not an Israeli, and came from St. Louis, not New York, and
>>has worked in Washington, not Brooklyn, and describes the Orthodox as
>>a "millstone" around Israel's neck.
If H had actually read Sachar, instead of merely claiming that he had,
these facts would not be as "interesting" as he now finds them.
>>So, thank you for reviving my interest in Professor Sachar.
I've been quoting Sachar for years. And now H claims his interest has
just been "revived". Now pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
>>think, we may be marching forward together in search of the truth in a
>>format which neither of us will seek to deny!
>Sheesh, what an asshole...
I'll second that.
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>>>>I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
>>>>>>it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
>>>>>>line".
>>><dshar...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>Yeah, right.
>>>>drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>Lie after lie after lie. And I don't remember this challenge.
>>>>Neither do I, but then, I don't read all of H's ramblings. But that
>>>>line's another clue that H hasn't read Sachar's History of Israel --
>>>>or anything else by Sachar. Comparing it "line by line" with PAPPE?
>>>>It's like comparing War and Peace "line by line" with Noddy Meets
>>>>Father Christmas.
>>On Nov 29, 12:22 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>On Nov 29, 1:17 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Think before you jump to conclusions. It was a long time ago, Deb.
>>Thirty years. I simply didn't recall who wrote them.
[snip blah blah blah, already dealt with]
On Nov 29, 11:08 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Naw, I'm talking to both of you. Just doing it efficiently.
ROTFLOL!
>I'm now in
>the process of predicting what, to your mutual chagrin, you may find
>in the great Dr. Sachar's *revised and expanded* history of Israel,
>such as reflections of the following:
>"Perhaps my only criticism is that it is somewhat one-sided. It deals
>with Arab issues well, but since it is a history of Israel, it focuses
>more on the Israeli side of things. It certainly is not a book about
>the emotional trials of the refugees -- instead it is meant as an
>objective documentation of fact. People looking for an op/ed piece
>will not find it here. It does, however, manage to present the major
>mistakes Israel has made as well as many of the shocking atrocities
>committed in the name of the Jewish state."
Oh, we "may find in the great Dr. Sachar's *revised and expanded*
history of Israel, such as reflections" of the foregoing, may we?
I think we MAY be likelier to find "such reflections" in the following
-- specifically the third paragrapH
CUSTOMER REVIEW
44 of 52 people found the following review helpful:
An excellent historical tome and a very interesting read!
February 1, 2003
By funkyman33
Sachar's tome A History of Israel is both complete and a great read.
Not being a formal teacher or student of history (this is just a
hobby), I wanted a complete book that presented the issues of the
Middle East objectively and completely. Sachar's book does that very
well.
Although some parts of it can be difficult to get through,
particularly the economic issues, the book is simple to read and not
overly convoluted. It presents the history of this important country
in a very thorough manner, barely missing any important issues.
Perhaps my only criticism is that it is somewhat one-sided. It deals
with Arab issues well, but since it is a history of Israel, it focuses
more on the Israeli side of things. It certainly is not a book about
the emotional trials of the refugees -- instead it is meant as an
objective documentation of fact. People looking for an op/ed piece
will not find it hear. It does, however, manage to present the major
mistakes Israel has made as well as many of the shocking atrocities
committed in the name of the Jewish state.
I was looking for a book to answer the question -- where did this
conflict start? Where did Arabs and Jews go wrong in their relations
that has led us to this point? A History of Israel answered this
question and many, many more. It is by far the best book about Israel
that I have read and I recommend it highly!
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1AL2BYKEXWQ5Q
>Thank you also for providing us with another example of
>your "highly intelligent" status in this world.
lol
And thank H, for once again providing us with yet another example of
his mendacious proclivities.
If nothing else, these sonei Yisrael are worth a laugh or two.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > wrote:
> > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
> > On Nov 28, 8:15 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> > > the international community recognized as ours.
> On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > That was 55% of Palestine. The Palestinians will settle now for 22%.
On Nov 29, 1:33 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Got a cite for that?
Of course he does. But he's not going to provide it, because it would
embarrass him. You need to ask?
> > > snip silly lies
>
> > > you know it's pathetic the way fools like you try to sound intelligent
> > > but aren't capable of using anything that remotely resembles logic or
> > > truth.
>
> > An example, please?
*******sound of crickets********
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>>from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
>>>>the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
>>>>happened.
>
>>On Nov 28, 6:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Then why did Benny Morris spend three or four hundred pages describing
>>>them?
>
He didn't, and if H had actually read any of Morris's books, instead
of lying about having read them, he would have known that Morris
didn't devote even a hundred pages to the expulsions.
"There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab
population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March
10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF
Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the
Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence
Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the
emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's
what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria
and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th...The demonisation of Israel is
largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during
the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection
between the two."
Benny Morris, Israel and the Palestinians, Irish Times, 21st February
2008
>On Nov 28, 6:42 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>Book(s) and page numbers with quotes, please.
You have to ask? You know you're not going to get them, because H has
never read any of Morris's books.
On Nov 29, 1:39 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>The title is paraphrased as "The Origins of the Palestinian Refugee
>Problem."
The alleged 'paraphrase' of a title is not a book and page numbers
with quotes. Naturally, H can't provide the book, or books, OR the
correct title thereof, and certainly not the pages numbers with the
quotes, for the simple reason that H never read any book Morris wrote.
And for H's further education, here is a list of Morris's books.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to see any "paraphrase"
called "The Origins of the Palestinian Refugee Problem":
* The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1988)
* Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence
Services, with Ian Black (1991)
* Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli
Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War (1993)
* 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians (1994)
* Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict,
1881-1999 (1999-2001)
* Correcting a Mistake? Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel,
1936-1956 (2000)
* The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews
(2003)
* The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004)
* Making Israel (ed)(2008)
* 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (2008)
* One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict
(2009)
>It made his reputation as a "New Historian".
That was the 1988 edition of The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee
Problem. No "paraphrasing" about that title.
>It's only in
>more recent times that he has pulled in his horns to protect his
>professorship.
Morris has done nothing of the sort, not being the cowardly type. He
himself has explained it, and I've quoted from it several times:
"I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli 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 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."
- A. Shavit, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 8th January 2004
>>Deb proclaimed, "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
Liar.
>>>Unfortunately she loved him before having read him.
Stupid comment, but very likely a mirror image of H's attitude toward
Pappe and his crappe.
>>>I've read Sachar.
No, H hasn't read Sachar.
>>I say you haven't. I say you're lying. The reason? You've never ONCE
>>cited it, and it's the most widely accepted history of Israel
>No, I didn't cite it. Why do you suppose that was?
H never read it, that's why.
>But I probably will in the future.
Probably he'll simply paste the quotes I've been posting for years.
>>>Tell you what, let's put Sachar opposite Pappe and
>>>Shlaim and simply compare what they say issue by issue. I'm not at all
>>>concerned by that.
H ought to be. It's like putting War and Peace opposite Noddy and Big
Ears Have a Picnic, and comparing what they say issue by issue.
>>>For one thing Sachar wrote before the relevant
>>>archives were opened to historians.
So what?
>>>I have certainly read Sachar.
>>No, you haven't. You're lying.
>>>I read the local library's copy a year
>>>or two ago. I kept it on my desk for quite a while offering to compare
>>>it with Pappe.
What twaddle.
>>>You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
>>>line".
>>Lie after lie after lie. And I don't remember this challenge. Please
>>cite.
Hah.
>Look it up. You don't waste my time.
It's a waste of time to look it up, simply because H never made the
challenge to compare War and Peace with Noddy and Big Ears Have a
Picnic -- oops, I mean Sachar and Pappe.
>The point was that you were in effect ignoring the Zionism of the
>early generations. They were not about to offer to share Palestine and
>to join into one happy, Semitic family. No, no, that wasn't their
>intent. It wasn't consistent with their ideology.
LOL!!! It's H here who's ignoring early Zionism -- mainly because he
hasn't a clue what it was about.
>Like Deb, you ought
>to think about what I say before flying off the handle.
Oh, I do think about it. Mostly, I wonder why someone spends so much
time and energy lying and thenshuck-n-jiving when caught lying.
>Anyone can conclude without supporting argument that something makes
>no sense.
H would know about that.
>And recently you've been reduced to doing that constantly. I
>really wish you people would find an educated and thoughtful person to
>deal with your critics here.
We have. Several of them. The problem is, H and his ilk are reduced to
lies and insults when confronted by facts.
[snip turgid and OT, but typical H rant]
Deborah
Fish Supper
"RabbiJoekerr" <jokerso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d37153a2-a6ca-49fb...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
***
which bit was anti-semitic?
Fish Supper
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54396cc8-3ad3-4328...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
***
Like clockwork.
Dicky gets shown up as a fool and starts throwing around childish insults.
Isn't this usually about the time you start lying about ambulances Dicky?
Fish Supper
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6448c15-0ff3-4d32...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
***
In all my years of newsgrouping, I don't think I've ever seen anything so
humiliating - where one of the combatants had to tell the other how to
fight, so one-sided was the contest.
You're actually so bored that you are now telling him how to argue his case?
Ico! Shame on you! Robbing the rest of us of hours of fun.
It's like Ali telling Liston "keep the guard up Sonny, drop the shoulder,
step in -jab, move away, doing fine Sony, jab jab duck, weave come backup
and jab jab, there you go Sonny, ther you go."
Fish Supper
***
who let the dogs out?
You've got all the zionutties snarling at your heels like Yorkshire Terriers
chasing after a postman, Ico. Something you said, maybe?
In what can only be described as an unwitting homage to 1960s gangsters, the
newsgoup has spawned its very own "Yap Pack".
Yellow Dick, Mad Debby and the Prozac Rabbi - appearing at a massacre near
you soon.
drahcir
How can there be a "latter" when there is only one mentioned?
> I've read consistently that whole time . I've even read Leon Uris."
Seems like this time he forgot about "Sachar, perhaps".
>
> This was made the same day H also posted that:
> "I'm working from Palestine Remembered."
> and
> "Deborah, they are simply copied and pasted from Palestine
> Remembered, a very reputable site. It's one which you, personally,
> should emulate. You could, perhaps, improve your scholarly ethics."
>
> That, too, is pretty funny.
Perhaps, but I think "Sachar, perhaps" has you beat by a mile.
>
> This was around the time H had spent eleven months evading my request
> for him to back his claim that SCR 242 required Israel to return land
> to the "Palestinians" by simply pointing to the provision -- 1, 2, 3,
> or 4 -- which required that of Israel. Of course, he never did, and
> instead spent months and lots of bandwidth swishing around the
> subject. And of course, it's because he could NOT back his claim.
>
> And note his parroted refrain of one of his other false claims - that
> I "exclaimed something like: 'Don't you just love Benny Morris?' I've
> proven several times who it was who actually made that claim. Since H
> keeps forgetting, here it is again:
You must understand that the alzheimic brain makes such transpositions
all too easily. Lately he can't even figure out to whom he is
replying. Let's cut him a little slack.
>
> "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. And today Benny Morris has that
> access and can if he wishes supplement his earlier work. And besides,
> all of the relevant data was not found in the IDF Archives."
> 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
>
> Note that in the same thread, H was knowledgeably citing Anita
> Shapira, or so he made it seem -- the same Anita Shapira H was
> thanking me for introducing him to several days ago.
>
> >He's read a couple of
> >histories, and thinks PERHAPS one of them may have been Sachar. Either
> >he's not a very good liar or he's so senile that he read a 1000 page
> >history and isn't sure who wrote it. Is there a third possibility I am
> >overlooking?
>
> Put it simply: like the liar Alan Hart, whose screed somebody,
> probably H, posted quite recently, H uses "the oldest trick in the
> book--pretending to know more" than he does. That may work for some,
> but not with anyone who knows the subject. In short, he lies.
>
> Make no mistake, drahcir - H does know his stuff on a number of
> subjects. Someone (we know who) is certain, and I'll agree with the
> opinion of a USC prof on that. It's just this particular subject H
> does NOT know, does not want to know, is too lazy to educate himself,
> and prefers to lie about it because that's easier for him than
> confronting the fact that he's wrong.
>
> If H had actually read any of those scholarly tomes (which excludes
> Pappe, Waltsheimer, Dayan, and Leon, of course) he claims to have
> read, it stands to reason he might have quoted some, yes?
Precisely.
> ...
>
> read more »
Aaronovich
How many certificates proving you are sane, do you own?
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Cazador
Hilarious. Poor soul, indeed. You don your hair shirt every morning.
Cazador
> On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 8:15 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> > > No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> > > the international community recognized as ours.
>
> > That was 55% of Palestine. The Palestinians will settle now for 22%.
>
> Got a cite for that?
For what, 55 or 22?
> > Why do you keep oppressing them?
Here I've posed the central question and you flee. Come on, explain
it.
> > > snip silly lies
Haha. Everyone knows what you snip, Ratner.
Cazador
Weak, Joker.
Cazador
As you like my dear Rabbi. But conclusions are supposed to be derived
from well-argued premises. You're appearing to be another weakling.
Cazador
Whistle past the grave yard, Joke. You rant but contribute nothing. I
thought you folks were supposed to be world-class intellectuals.
Cazador
Ah, I was obviously wrong. You have contributed a "bwahahahar."
drahcir
I don't find it hilarious that you can't even keep track of to whom
you are replying. If I were a believer, my reaction would be "there
but for the grace of God...".
drahcir
> On Nov 29, 4:33 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 8:15 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> > > > No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> > > > the international community recognized as ours.
>
> > > That was 55% of Palestine. The Palestinians will settle now for 22%.
>
> > Got a cite for that?
>
> For what, 55 or 22?
That the arabs "will settle now for 22%". I need a cite showing 22%
and one showing that they will settle. Otherwise it's just one more
lie from you.
>
> > > Why do you keep oppressing them?
>
> Here I've posed the central question and you flee. Come on, explain
> it.
There's nothing central about the question - it's obviously loaded,
thus not worth wasting time on. It's as if I asked you why you keep
fucking your daughter and then ask you why you won't answer. "Come on,
explain it". Sheesh, second childhood must be tough. Regarding
fleeing, I have NEVER fled from a debate with you, EVER. You
desperately want company in your coward's corner, you want to "even
the scoreboard", but you won't find it with me, sorry.
>
> > > > snip silly lies
>
> Haha. Everyone knows what you snip, Ratner.
You're so pitifully decrepit and senile - I try to give you simple
advice to save you from further embarrassment, but you won't heed it.
How many times I've told you to keep track of the >'s, but your
pathetic, alzheimic brain can't seem to remember. I did not write
"snip silly lies", you oaf.
>
> > > > you know it's pathetic the way fools like you try to sound intelligent
> > > > but aren't capable of using anything that remotely resembles logic or
> > > > truth.
>
> > > An example, please?
You know, H, the group really wants to know about how it is you
thought Lebanon and Gaza are "occupied territories":
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/300bd6834fd9f31f
I simply can't wait to see the HHW Shuffle with which you're going to
try to extricate yourself from this one!
tdny
cornholio
He's good at nym-shifting though. Drachir and Deborah have certainly
served him in this thread.
Fish Supper
"tdny" <td...@live.com> wrote in message
news:c_SdnYW0aJwVuonW...@earthlink.com...
>
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589#
excellent, tdny - keep 'em coming please
coaste...@yahoo.com
You aren't expected to be a Christian believer.
drahcir
Stupid comment - Christians don't have a monopoly on God.
RabbiJoekerr
> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d37153a2-a6ca-49fb...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 9:17 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7c961c89-3eea-470b...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> > No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> > the international community recognized as ours.
>
> snip anti-Semitic propaganda
>
> Yaaawn... pathetic dodge but typical for your type!
>
> ***
> which bit was anti-semitic?
which bit wasn't?
RabbiJoekerr
RabbiJoekerr
RabbiJoekerr
> On Nov 29, 5:03 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > snip cowardly backpedaling and stupid lies...
> > keep running in circles dummy! Watching Richard humiliate you with
> > facts and real cites is hilarious!
>
too bad you're not intelligent enough to deal with richard or deb or
anyone else here.
RabbiJoekerr
and you contribute lies and delusions BWAHAHHAr there you go dummy now
you've had your fill.
RabbiJoekerr
tho he changes his name every few posts- his stupidity shows clearly
enough to identify him.
RabbiJoekerr
and you aren't expected to have intelligent thoughts... thus you've at
least met expectations!
coaste...@yahoo.com
Israel only occupies Lebanon intermittently in the low-tech sense of
the term, but she holds it hostage on a permanent basis. I expect
another low tech occupation in the next few years. The present
situation is what I deem a virtual occupation, a high-tech, partially
robotic answer to boots on the ground. The IDF is nothing if not
modern. The invasion and low-tech occupation of the early eighties
lasted, IIRC, eighteen years in the South. That related primarily to
the Zionist objective of annexing everything to the South of the
Litani River as part of Greater Israel. They had to set up a local
militia of Quislings and run the low-tech operation of the region by
proxy in order to avoid shedding the blood of nice Jewish boys.
Recently they occupied a portion of it again, ostensibly to rescue a
single Jewish prisoner while Israel herself holds 10,000 stateless
Palestinians, but actually as a part of a giant punitive expedition
against Lebanon, the Middle-East's only democracy. These new Israeli
low-tech occupiers were expelled by a mere militia of stateless
persons, Palestinians.
If the Gaza occupation had ended when Sharon withdrew its Jewish
imperialist "settlers," you would have seen its situation change for
the better. Instead the virtual occupation which succeeded it is by
design much worse. The enclave is under permanent siege because it
will not submit to Israeli hegemony. Its coast is blockaded. It's land
borders are invested so as to prevent travel. Its airspace is filled
with its tormentor's war planes. It is subject to "mistaken" artillery
fire. Children are malnourished and without medical care. Trade is
virutally non-existent and there are constant punitive expeditions
mounted against it from land, sea and air. The most recent low-tech
occupation of Gaza involved the killings of approximately 1,400
stateless persons, mostly Palestinians, by far most of them innocent
civilians. You'll recall that event. It's the one where crowds of
Israelis brought picnic baskets and bottles of wine and watched the
white phosphorus shelling of helpless civilians from an adjacent hill.
The occupation of Gaza continues. It's just shifted to the virtual,
high-tech type. It's just that the suffering inflicted is now being
accomplished at greater distance with American weapons--of mass
destruction if you will.
>
> I simply can't wait to see the HHW Shuffle with which you're going to
> try to extricate yourself from this one!
Thank you for this opportunity. I must say that you can be depended
upon to rise to such occasions.
drahcir
Well, our poor HHW, in this particular thread posing as "iconoclast"
for some reason, has been grinding those damaged, befuddled neurons of
his for the past couple of days, trying to figure out how he's gonna
extricate himself from this one. The below I am sure will be fun to
read for those with plenty of time on their hands. I, on the other
hand, am rather busy these days, and, since I already know that it's
just HHW flailing away in a silly attempt to justify the absurdly
stupid statement he made, must forgo this pleasure. The simple truth
is that, believe it or not, H is the colossal ignoramus who said Gaza
and Lebanon were part of the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. I know that's hard
to believe, so please, if you haven't already, click on the link
above. Bottom line: no informed and intelligent person on either side
of the Israel debate considers Gaza and Lebanon part of the Occupied
Territories. HHW is always on thin ice when discussing Israel, a topic
about which he is woefully ignorant, and very often falls through.
This is just one more instance of that.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 28, 6:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 2:39 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 2:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 9:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of
> > > > > > Israel
> > > > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they
> > > > > > too
> > > > > > asking
> > > > > > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > > > > > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a
> > > > > > Jewish
> > > > > > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
>
> > > > > Total bullshit. The arab population of Palestine increased
> > > > > dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
> > > > > opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
> > > > > countries.
>
> > > > So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
> > > > 1947-9 and 1967 to those surrounding Arab countries? Can't have those
> > > > Arabs living a better life now can we?
>
> > > Problem is, H, that you refuse to learn about the history of Israel
> > > from a credible, peer-reviewed book, preferring silly websites. See,
> > > the fact is, the so-called "expulsions you are referring to never
> > > happened.
>
> > them?
>
>
>
> deflect, deny, lie - Zionism for Dummies.
>
> And if Ico provided you with sources, quotes, page numbers, and every other
> kind of proof your response would be to throw an infantile insult and run
> away - it's what you do. It's what you did when I hung you out to dry on
> your lies about the IDF not firing on ambulances, using WP against
> civilians, using civilians as human shields and about half a dozen others
> cases.
>
> Deny your lies are lies and then, when they are shown to be lies, run away
> whilst name calling.
> ***
>
> There is something about those
>
> > archives from 1947-49 that you are shy about, Richard. You just hate
> > the fact that they were opened at all now don't you?
>
> You know, H, they say masturbating on newsgroups will grow hair on
> your computer keyboard....
>
> There it is, right on time - the boy can't answer and so throws a tantrum.
>
> ***
>
> I read the local library's copy a year
>
> > it with Pappe. You didn't accept the challenge. Remember, "line by
> > line".
>
> cite.
>
> ***
> You don't seem to remember quite a few challenges, dick. I can recall
> challenging you to answer a couple of dozen quoted sources which proved
> Israeli war crimes - never heard a peep from you apart from your usual name
> calling.
> ***
>
> > How could the Arabs expect to live in this "great place" when they
> > accurately understood that the plan of the Jews was to take the land
> > for themselves? To make it Arabrein. Nothing has changed. A million
> > were expelled pursuant to the plan justified by the ideology, your
> > ideology not to make too fine a point of it. Will you take
> > responsibility for what was done in its name?
>
> Again, makes no sense. The arabs in Israel love it there.
>
> ***
> You are Bull Connor and I claim my $5.
> ***
>
> Your idiotic
> question about expectations makes no sense. End of story. You are
> flailing away without hope.
>
> ***
> Agreed. He has no hope of making you see reason. As for making you look
> stupid, however - mission accomplished.
>
> If you'd read a decent history of Israel instead of lying about having
> done so, you wouldn't make such asinine statements. Jews were only
> happy to live and work side by side with arabs, and that's how it
> would have been if not for arab rabble rousers.
>
> ***
> You really believe that, don't you? Your willful ignorance is a force of
> nature.
> ***
>
> Of
>
> > course they had a right to resist. Even a duty. Who can doubt it?
> > Sixty percent of the people were non-Jewish in 1947-48 and that
> > fraction could only get worse from the point of view of the European
> > immigrants.
>
> The partition plan took that percentage into account. Israel would
> only have been comprised of jewish-majority areas had the plan been
> accepted by arabs.
>
> ***
> Oh, that and "had the arabs not been massacred and driven in panic from
> their lands"
> ***
>
> Welcome, indeed. Expulsion was the only way to make the
>
> > ideological goal of a Jewish state work. Ben-Gurion took the path of a
> > great crime against humanity, one he and his men had been planning for
> > core of the dispute.
>
> More tired blahblah from the lying ignoramus who has never read a
> decent history of israel and then, like a child, has to lie about it.
> You're an amazing liar, H. It's so easy for you. It never ceases to
> amaze me.
>
> deflect, lie, deny - deal with the point
> ***
>
> It was a giant injustice and one which can not be
>
> > justified by the previous history of Jews in Europe. One crime never
> > justifies another. The subsequent one can always be prosecuted
> > irrespective of whether the first one was.
>
> > Why do you spurn your chance to settle for 78% of the entire country?
> > That's very dangerous chutzpah. How is it that you think you are going
> > to get away with it?
>
> Ico, this is the Master Race we're talking about. You know? The ones with
> the higher IQs - they're not going to let some raghead A-rabs stop them
> taking 100% of The Land God Promised Them.
They've got to control United States foreign policy indefinitely to
have any hope of getting away with it. So far they've succeeded. But
as to that factor, it's the Land Mammon Promised Them, not God. And
the American people are gradually getting more and more fed-up. In the
meantime the neighborhood is getting more and more dangerous. It's as
if the Israeli people are in a trance, some sort of a dream state.
Raghead A-rabs who were centuries behind Europe in 1900 are now only a
few years behind the Israelis in the production of nuclear weapons
(Pakistan has had them for a decade) They are maybe a half dozen years
behind them in the production of highly sophisticated ballistic
missiles. They have air-breathing, below the radar, ship killing,
cruise missiles, just one of which is capable of sinking an American
aircraft carrier. They have abundant manpower capable of being turned
into troops easily the equal of the increasingly soft IDF and better
motivated. That's been proved by the Resistance, especially by
Hezbollah. They have far more liquid assets than Israel even with
American aid. These factors haven't all come together yet but the time
is obviously approaching. The Israelis are squandering opportunities
which might never again be theirs.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
> > > > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > > > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
> > > > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
> > > > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
> > On Nov 28, 9:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But funny!
Cute, but you can't explain it. You won't dare try.
>
> >>The arab population of Palestine increased
> > > dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
> > > opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
> > > countries.
>
> On Nov 28, 11:12 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
> > 1947-9
>
> A million -- rotflol.
Yes, a million. The first three quarters of which were driven out in
1947-49. The rest in 1967. A million.
> > Can't have those
> > Arabs living a better life now can we?
>
> They started doing just that after the advent of the ZIonist
> Enterprise.
The point is that even if I give you that sleazy claim, the Zionist
Enterprise was, well, Zionist. The objective was not to have a Jewish
homeland in the midst of a Palestinian majority such as Ratner
suggested. You're forgetting your own Iron Wall theory.
> >>Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
> > When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence
>
> Never.
You're smarter than Ratner, Deb.
> > > there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> > > Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> > > Jewish presence had to offer.
> > So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
>
> Azoy?
As a political factor in Palestine from virtually the beginning of the
Zionist Enterprise. The Palestinians came to understand what was going
on pretty early. Pappe discusses that.
> >> Even today, just ask Arab residents of
> > > Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
> > > financial incentive.
> > Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
>
> What "country" of "Palestine"? Palestine was never a country.
Semantics. Call it their homeland and move with meaningful argument,
please.
And that
> was not the question asked. The answer is, of course, that most of
> them would not even given a large financial incentive. Especially
> homosexual Palestinian Arabs.
I suggest you take up the homosexual issues with Richard. "Most of
them would not" is good enough for me. And in fact they had to be
expelled.
> > Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
> > state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
> > Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
> Who would coin a senseless word like "Arabrein" from the very real
> "Judenrein"? An ignorant antisemite, that's who.
Really, now. Ethnic cleansing is actually something else when
perpetrated by the military wing of the Yishuv and the IDF?
>
> Deborah
> > > You are asking
>
> > > > them to internalize the fact that they have less right to live freely
> > > > on their own ancestral lands where they have lived in unbroken
> > > > continuity for millenia, than an immigrant to the Middle East who, by
> > > > an accident of birth, happens to have been born into a "preferred"
> > > > religion." (From Lawrence of Cyberia)- Hide quoted text -
I wish you had actually come to grips with this quotation. You could
have, but only if you took to heart my advice to Richard about a
better Zionist strategy.
coaste...@yahoo.com
to pretend he hasn't. Here's a little glossary which will assist in
understanding my analysis:
Low-tech occupation means boots on the ground like the U.S. in
Afghanistan. Grunts and all that. Face to face. Daily casualties,
etc. Misery for both sides characteristic of infantry operations. It's
purpose is to suppress opposition through the ruthless control of
daily life.
High tech occupation is a definite advance militarily from the point
of view of the IDF. It accomplishes most of the same results with even
greater violence but with misery only for one side (!) because the
casualties and destruction are inflicted impersonally from a distance
using weapons and technology unavailable to their victims. It is
supplemented by blockade and semi-starvation so that this more modern
version of the occupation experience lacks nothing but an occasional
spitting incident or sniper murder of a teen age girl to make it a
complete occupation experience.
In both cases the purpose is to kill and intimidate as many of the
occupied people as possible, on the theory that sooner or later they
will collapse and give up their resistance to Israeli hegemony. The
down side of high tech occupation is that the low tech version will
ultimately have to be used in order to mop up, annex and colonize the
land taken from it's former owners.
I hope this helps and that you will enjoy the next two paragraphs more
fully.
> > Israel only occupies Lebanon *intermittently* in the low-tech sense of
> > the term, but she holds it hostage on a permanent basis. I expect
> > another low tech occupation in the next few years. The present
> > situation is what I deem a virtual occupation, a high-tech, partially
> > robotic improvement to boots on the ground. The IDF is nothing if not
> > modern. The invasion and low-tech occupation of the early eighties
> > lasted, IIRC, eighteen years in the South. That related primarily to
> > the Zionist objective of annexing everything to the South of the
> > Litani River as part of Greater Israel. They had to set up a local
> > militia of Quislings and run the low-tech occupation of the region by
You're not touching that argument are you, Richard? Those who leave
the field of honor are without it.
Fish Supper
"dsha...@gmail.com" <dsha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c07bd162-e216-403e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Who would coin a senseless word like "Arabrein" from the very real
"Judenrein"? An ignorant antisemite, that's who.
Deborah
***
You're right of course, it is a senseless word; it should be "Araberrein".
As to who would coin it, a student of history is my guess. There's never
been a case in history where the Arabs were driven from tehir own land
becasue of who they were, so we need a new word to describe it - and where
better than another case in history where a people lost their homes,
possessins and lives because of who they were?
You and all the other zionists are a shame on the memory of the Jewish
victims of the Holocaust.
Fish Supper
"RabbiJoekerr" <jokerso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:406c86f3-6e99-40b9...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
which bit wasn't?
***
yawn - you bore me. Now, fuck off.
drahcir
LOL! What you are attempting to sell as an argument is seen by all as
just mounds of flailing bullshit to vainly try to emerge from this
episode unscathed. I mean, think about it - what would you have me do?
Read your mounds of crap and then say, "ah, yes, you were in fact
correct - Lebanon and Gaza are part of the Occupied Territories."?
THINK, MAN. There's nothing short of a cerebral hemorrhage that would
motivate me to say something like that.
You know, H, the single biggest advantage I have over you in these
discussions of ours is your unwillingness to admit error. You make a
lot of errors, but could easily move past them were you to simply
admit to and apologize for your ignorance or stupidity, as the case
may be. That, however, requires self-confidence and courage, so kinda
lets you out.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Fool, cerebral hemorrhages don't motivate anything. Quite the
opposite. Bear down, Ratner. We have work to do.
My writing here is only responsive to you in a formal sense. You are
my Zionist symbol, straight man, punching bag, scarecrow. I wouldn't
"have you do" or say anything but what you do and say now, which is
essentially nothing in the most vile fashion imaginable. Just as you
wouldn't want your mother reading your posts, you shouldn't want the
Jewish community reading them either.
The only thing I regret about you is that you are so over-matched as
to be incapable of actual debate. I would prefer there being two
debaters here instead of just one.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
This is the central thesis of Professor Norman Finkelstein's "The
Holocaust Industry". It's a seminal study of modus operandi in the
Holocaust extortion racket. It's a highly recommended primer on the
nature of the beast the US faces in the Israel Lobby.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Hilarious. You now admit having read it.
drahcir
Um, that was the point, H. I couldn't say something like that without
brain damage. The fact that I have to spell that out for you speaks
for itself.
Bear down, Ratner. We have work to do.
More empty blahblah below I see. Save it for someone who isn't onto
you, H.
>
> My writing here is only responsive to you in a formal sense. You are
> my Zionist symbol, straight man, punching bag, scarecrow. I wouldn't
> "have you do" or say anything but what you do and say now, which is
> essentially nothing in the most vile fashion imaginable. Just as you
> wouldn't want your mother reading your posts, you shouldn't want the
> Jewish community reading them either.
>
> The only thing I regret about you is that you are so over-matched as
> to be incapable of ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
Um, no. Since you are obviously confused, I will help you. A reply
goes beneath that to which it applies, namely the following:
> > > You're not touching that argument are you, Richard? Those who leave
> > > the field of honor are without it.
Get it now, or do you need further assistance?
Aaronovich
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:328e7f71-d154-496c...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Which is exactly the point being made. You are immune to truth and fact. You
are a mouthpiece for the Zionista.
>You know, H, the single biggest advantage I have over you in these
>discussions of ours is your unwillingness to admit error. You make a
>lot of errors, but could easily move past them were you to simply
>admit to and apologize for your ignorance or stupidity, as the case
>may be. That, however, requires self-confidence and courage, so kinda
>lets you out.
What a hypocritical bunch of delusionary rubbish. You are obviously
communicating with an image in a mirror.
You are nothing more than a whiny Jew, totally involved with perpetuating
the Jew myths you people need to survive.
I have done a bit of search on you on the internet. You are a born loser by
all accounts. Your only claim to so-called fame is your music, which can
only be classified as fundamental at best. It is also from the birdbath. You
do music NO favors.
Your only enjoyment from life seems to me to be your thorough joy at being
beaten up by Iconoclast and others, on a constant and regular basis.
To say you are a fool is to be unkind to fools.
Fish Supper
***
Well, that's it, Ico - the game's up. Best pack your tent and slip off into
the night; Dicky's on to you now.
He has a high IQ, you know. He told us.
coaste...@yahoo.com
But then what was the point of initially saying you couldn't bring
your self to read it.
The fact that I have to spell that out for you speaks
> for itself.
You're evading, not elucidating.
>
> Bear ...
>
> read more »
RabbiJoekerr
> "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:406c86f3-6e99-40b9...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 6:46 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "RabbiJoekerr" <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d37153a2-a6ca-49fb...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 28, 9:17 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:> "RabbiJoekerr"
> > <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:7c961c89-3eea-470b...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage".
>
> > > No we are simply asking them to allow us to live in peace in an area
> > > the international community recognized as ours.
>
> > snip anti-Semitic propaganda
>
> > Yaaawn... pathetic dodge but typical for your type!
>
> > ***
> > which bit was anti-semitic?
>
> which bit wasn't?
>
> ***
>
>
I accept your surrender!!!
coaste...@yahoo.com
What bullshit. You top post whenever you want to distract attention
from a reply.
So, Missy, I welcome your response on the merits of my theory that
"occupation" comes in different forms here in the modern era and that
one has to follow the effects to correctly identify it?
drahcir
I DIDN'T READ IT. If you'd learn about <'s, you'd understand that I
replied to:
> > > > > You're not touching that argument are you, Richard? Those who leave
> > > > > the field of honor are without it.
from above. My reply was clearly placed directly beneath it.
>
> The fact that I have to spell that out for you speaks
>
> > for itself.
>
> You're evading, not elucidating.
LOL! I am not obliged to elucidate anything. And it's not evading,
it's ignoring the mounds of crap you used to try to escape having been
caught claiming that Lebanon and Gaza were part of the Occupied
Territories. See, H, in your original blunder, you didn't say that
Gaza and Lebanon were kinda, sorta occupied or whatever idiocy you
tried to claim in the reams of crap above, you said they were part of
the Occupied Territories (capital OT). The Occupied Territories is a
name that refers to a certain specific group of territories,
specifically, territories that were 1) won in the 1967 war, and 2)
continue to be occupied by Israel, not just any old territories that
may be occupied. That's why your mounds of crap are irrelevant -
nothing you say about Gaza and Lebanon will make them part of the
Occupied Territories (capital OT), any more than if you jump up and
down and stand on your head. Here's what you said:
> > > You're welcome. The pace of your killing in the OTs is accelerating.
> > Oh, it's "accelerating", is it? I'm not sure I understand, H.
> Everyone else does. Why not you? Lebanon, Gaza.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/300bd6834fd9f31f
Here, maybe this will help you. Let's say that I claim that Colombia
is part of the Northwest Territories, and you call me an idiot,
because the Northwest Territories are part of Canada. Well, I start to
panic because I realize you're right, and then bombard you with mounds
of crap to explain to you that Colombia IS in the northwest (of South
America), and it has territory. You'd think I was even more of an
idiot, wouldn't you? Get the picture?
>
> > Bear ...
>
> > read more »
drahcir
That is not relevant. When I address a point, the reply is placed
below that point. PERIOD.
>
> So, Missy, I welcome your response on the merits of my theory that
> "occupation" comes in different forms here in the modern era and that
> one has to follow the effects to correctly identify it?
Statements should have periods, not question marks.
From my other post to you in this thread:
See, H, in your original blunder, you didn't say that
Gaza and Lebanon were kinda, sorta occupied or whatever idiocy you
tried to claim in the reams of crap above, you said they were part of
the Occupied Territories (capital OT). The Occupied Territories is a
name that refers to a certain group of territories,
cornholio
wrote:
Yeah, a professor of psychology who's academic work is beneath
the notice of the rest of academia.
Fish Supper
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:901b055f-5a94-4ab2...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
***
Thanks for the heads up - I'll try to get my hands on a copy
dsharavi
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of Israel
> > > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too
> > > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are asking
> > > > > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > > > > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish
> > > > > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their
> > > > > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
> > > On Nov 28, 9:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Total bullshit.
>
> On Nov 28, 11:19 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But funny!
>
> On Nov 28, 11:19 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cute, but you can't explain it. You won't dare try.
It's not up to me to explain away your comic routines.
> > >>The arab population of Palestine increased
> > > > dramatically as a DIRECT RESULT of Zionism, which created jobs and
> > > > opportunities for a better life for arabs than the surrounding arab
> > > > countries.
>
> > On Nov 28, 11:12 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > So that was the reason the Zionists expelled a million of them in
> > > 1947-9
>
> > A million -- rotflol.
>
> Yes, a million. The first three quarters of which were driven out in
> 1947-49. The rest in 1967. A million.
>
Back up a little to :
"Zionists expelled a MILLION of them in 1947-9"
and compare to
"The first three quarters of which were driven out in 1947-49."
So, no, the "Zionists" did NOT expel "a million of them" in 1947-49",
and you just contradicted yourself.
> > > Can't have those
> > > Arabs living a better life now can we?
>
> > They started doing just that after the advent of the ZIonist
> > Enterprise.
>
> The point is that even if I give you that sleazy claim, the Zionist
> Enterprise was, well, Zionist.
Which is, well, Jewish. And cripes, we can't have Jews succeeding too
well, can we? Especially without all the help given the Palestine
Arabs.
>The objective was not to have a Jewish
> homeland in the midst of a Palestinian majority such as Ratner
> suggested.
Where was that suggested?
>You're forgetting your own Iron Wall theory.
What "Iron Wall theory" of mine? That must be on a par with the "Don't
you just love Benny Morris" phrase you keep attributing to me,
although it was, in fact, your own; and the "racist comment against Al
Sharpton" you accused me of making, which I never made.
> > >>Before arab violence, there was no "collateral damage",
> > > When was year zero before which there was no Arab violence
>
> > Never.
>
> You're smarter than Ratner, Deb.
>
I'm more knowledgeable on the subject than you, that's certain.
> > > > there was "collateral benefit", and there could have been a state of
> > > > Israel without all the bloodshed where arabs enjoyed all that the
> > > > Jewish presence had to offer.
> > > So now you are ruduced to denying the existence of Zionism?
>
> > Azoy?
>
> As a political factor in Palestine from virtually the beginning of the
> Zionist Enterprise.
Azoy?
>The Palestinians came to understand what was going
> on pretty early. Pappe discusses that.
I see you've thrown in the towel on your claim to have read Sachar.
Does Pappe discuss the new Star Trek reboot? That would be
interesting.
> > >> Even today, just ask Arab residents of
> > > > Israel whether they'd like to move to Syria or Jordan if given a large
> > > > financial incentive.
> > > Why should they be expected to leave their country, Palestine?
>
> > What "country" of "Palestine"? Palestine was never a country.
>
> Semantics. Call it their homeland and move with meaningful argument,
> please.
It wasn't their homeland, either, considering how many thousands of
Egyptians the Khedive transplanted during his occupation, as well the
mass Arab immigration stimulated by enterprising Zionist Jews.
>
> > And that
> > was not the question asked. The answer is, of course, that most of
> > them would not even given a large financial incentive. Especially
> > homosexual Palestinian Arabs.
>
> I suggest you take up the homosexual issues with Richard.
Why? You need a go-between?
>"Most of
> them would not" is good enough for me.
rotf
>And in fact they had to be expelled.
>
> > > Just your making that statement proves you want an Arabrein Jewish
> > > state. Who else would such an arrangement have occurred to but a
> > > Zionist? A racist Zionist in fact.
> > Who would coin a senseless word like "Arabrein" from the very real
> > "Judenrein"? An ignorant antisemite, that's who.
>
> Really, now. Ethnic cleansing is actually something else when
> perpetrated by the military wing of the Yishuv and the IDF?
The "military wing" of the IDF? Do tell. The "military wing of the
Yishuv" is pretty funny, too. And it was pretty ineffectual,
considering how many Jews were massacred by Palestine Arabs.
> > > > You are asking>
> > > > > them to internalize the fact that they have less right to live freely
> > > > > on their own ancestral lands where they have lived in unbroken
> > > > > continuity for millenia, than an immigrant to the Middle East who, by
> > > > > an accident of birth, happens to have been born into a "preferred"
> > > > > religion." (From Lawrence of Cyberia)
PalArabs have a better right to live on land to which their recent
ancestors were immigrants?
> I wish you had actually come to grips with this quotation. You could
> have, but only if you took to heart my advice to Richard about a
> better Zionist strategy.
I just did, and with all the effort warranted by an antisemitic
fertilizer shoveler.
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> Follow drahcir's advice, folks. Read it. He has no response so he has
> to pretend he hasn't. Here's a little glossary which will assist in
> understanding my analysis:
>
> Low-tech occupation means boots on the ground like the U.S. in
> Afghanistan. Grunts and all that. Face to face. Daily casualties,
> etc. Misery for both sides characteristic of infantry operations. It's
> purpose is to suppress opposition through the ruthless control of
> daily life.
>
> High tech occupation is a definite advance militarily from the point
> of view of the IDF. It accomplishes most of the same results with even
> greater violence but with misery only for one side (!) because the
> casualties and destruction are inflicted impersonally from a distance
> using weapons and technology unavailable to their victims. It is
> supplemented by blockade and semi-starvation so that this more modern
> version of the occupation experience lacks nothing but an occasional
> spitting incident or sniper murder of a teen age girl to make it a
> complete occupation experience.
>
> In both cases the purpose is to kill and intimidate as many of the
> occupied people as possible, on the theory that sooner or later they
> will collapse and give up their resistance to Israeli hegemony. The
> down side of high tech occupation is that the low tech version will
> ultimately have to be used in order to mop up, annex and colonize the
> land taken from it's former owners.
And how does H explain the decades-long Syrian occupation of Lebanon,
and the "Palestinian" massacres of Lebanese civilians? Answer: he
shines it on.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > You and all the other zionists are a shame on the memory of the Jewish
> > victims of the Holocaust.
A shame, no doubt, because our immediate forebears weren't slaughtered
by the soulmates of "Fish Supper", so he could jump for joy over their
deaths, too.
On Dec 1, 2:25 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> This is the central thesis of Professor Norman Finkelstein's "The
> Holocaust Industry". It's a seminal study of modus operandi in the
> Holocaust extortion racket. It's a highly recommended primer on the
> nature of the beast the US faces in the Israel Lobby.
And another book, no doubt, which H has never read.
Deborah
drahcir
wrote:
Cite, please. Or you're a liar yet again.
Fish Supper
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dcd58301-e30a-43c2...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Nov 28, 1:38 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > "When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the "right" of
> > > > > Israel
> > > > > to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they
> > > > > too
> > > > > think Zionism is worth all this "collateral damage". You are
> > > > > asking
> > > > > them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the
> > > > > things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a
> > > > > Jewish
> > > > > state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include
> > > > > their
> > > > > own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement.
> > > On Nov 28, 9:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Total bullshit.
>
> On Nov 28, 11:19 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But funny!
>
> On Nov 28, 11:19 pm, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cute, but you can't explain it. You won't dare try.
It's not up to me to explain away your comic routines.
***
any chance we'll get to hear your theory on the Welsh any time soon?
Michael Ejercito
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Michael
Tell it like it is.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Israel was brought back from
extinction as a country by a foreign race. Ashkenazi Jews have the DNA
of Eastern Europenas. Religious Jews living in the Middle East share
the same DNA as Arabs and the entire Middle Eastern population of
which they are a part.
The people who invaded Palestine
and re-incarnated Israel in their own image are a different race. They
have given up their own yiddish language and adopted the Hebrew
language and religion and speak the Hebrew of the native religious
Jews whose forbears wrote every word of the Holy Bible: Torah, Tanakh,
and , believe it or not, New Teastament of Jesus Christ, including the
Talmudic letters of St. Paul, scholar of the Law, from the tribe of
Benjamin, and Saul [aka St. Paul] was, at that time in world history,
an officer of the Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem.
If it took the invasion of
Palestine to put an end to discrimination of Jews based on race and
religion, it will only be because Palestine and Israel exist as two
separate people based on religious history who are the offspring of
the pagan Abraham: Jacob, Esau, and their half brother Ishmael sons of
Abraham by birthright according to Biblical tradition. Or we will be
implementing the last American Administration's clash of
civilization's mentality with disastrous consequences for world peace.
Jerusalem is forever the
acknowledged Capitol of Biblical Jews. Palestine is the birthplace of
a Jewish Christ in the Middle East in a region recognized by
religious Jews, Muslims, and Christians, as The Holy Land.
Tell it like it is.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since history just keeps repeating itself, ancient Rome
a secular or pagan nation ruled religious Palestine and Israel, put an
end to their feuding and made it possible for them to live side by
side in peace, by respecting the peculiar customs of both pagan and
jew. Maybe it will take a secular state called Eretz Israel governed
by a foreign people also jewish in religion, though secular in
politics, to bring peace among the religious factions of THE HOLY
LAND.
The theocratic character of the Middle East beyond
Palestine and Israel does not comprehend DEMOCRACY.
Their culture is religious and peculiarly their own. It is foolish to
force those people to enter a modern world at the point of a gun.
Diplomacy is what they need, and Statesmen, not guns, bombs and
bullets and occupation by a foreign power whose presence they will
hate.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Aaronovich
"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8b70977-8d95-465c...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Idiot. The holocaust industry is what created the ludicrous holocaust fairy
tale.
Fish Supper
"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8b70977-8d95-465c...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
***
And your point is?
I'm not a holocaust denier - neither, I suspect is Prof Finkelstein, given
taht both his parents were in concentration camps.
Tell it like it is.
> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The holocaust was the working to death of Germany's
jews in labor camps, and the attempted extermination of them from
Europe by Hitler's Nazi Party, but the working to death of Russia's
Christians in the cold of Siberia and forced labor in work camps, in
other partss of their native Russia, with little food resulting in a
hell of a lot more than seven million dying, includibng the deliberate
starvation of the citizens of the Ukraine. The killing of Christians
who refused to renounce their faith in Almighty God in exchange for a
Godless Communism, and working the faithful to death in labor camps in
Siberia is not a holocaust, but when Hitler's Nazis gets even it's a
holocaust.
I suspect Zionism will accomplish for America's Jews
what Naziism accomplished for Germany's.
I noticed Prince Andy has been kicked off google groups. For years
he's been posting the glorious jewish department heads of the glorious
BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION that put an end to a Christian but illiterate
Russia of 1917.
hitler v. stalin.
Jews deny there ever was anything wrong with a Bolshevik Revolution
bringing a Godless Communism to Christian Russia to the world and to
the United States. it seems reasonable that many Christians therefore
should feel a mutual lack of respect for the proud Communists who
promote their RACE in the United States.
Fish Supper
"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48e6b92c-e530-46d3...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
***
maybe it's me - honest to god, I don't know what point you're trying to
make. Are you even trying to make a point?
Tell it like it is.
> "Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:48e6b92c-e530-46d3...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
A famous writer named Koestler wrote that the
United Nations through INTERNATIONAL LAW legitimized Eretz Israel in
1948.
Americans are no more into Zionism than
Naziism, Communism, or any other sick, twisted 'ism ruling over them.
Fish Supper
***
ahh - ok - I see where you're coming from now.
Is it just me or does anyone else hear 'Duelling Banjos' in the background?
coaste...@yahoo.com
Well, not exactly. He said all his friends think he's brilliant.