Is Israel becoming as paranoid as the US?

michelleelise

Byrnzie wrote:

Funny, but the Israeli leadership have talked of expelling the Palestinians many times but nobody seems to take issue with that.

I think a lot of people take issue with that, actually.

Byrnzie wrote:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

I'm not saying there weren't forced expulsions, but that quote from Ben-Gurion is debated as being taken out of context:

"After reading Karsh’s book, Morris, who had originally contended that Ben-Gurion unequivocally supported forced expulsions, reconsidered his view and admitted that he should have examined the original letter rather than rely on a secondary source. In an otherwise critical review of Karsh’s book appearing in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Volume XXVII, Number 2, Winter, 1998), Morris wrote:

Had I gone to the original, I would have noticed that the quotation is problematic, as three lines had been crossed out (by Ben-Gurion or someone else, subsequently), vitally changing the meaning of the passage. The text (with the lines crossed out) reads: "We must expel Arabs and take their place..."(which is how Teveth quoted the passage). But if the crossed-out lines are deciphered and reintroduced, then Ben-Gurion’s stance becomes equivocal, rendering the passage: "And then we will have to use force... without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place..."

Byrnzie wrote:

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.


"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

Well, you're quoting hardliners and right-wingers. The equivalent of quoting Cheney and then making assumptions of the intent of all Americans based upon what he says. A lot of Israelis and non-Israeli Jews do take issue with those things, despite your claim.

catefrances

michelle822 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but didnt you hear?????????? he wants to wipe israel OFF THE MAP!

I guess you didn't read the Iranian press release, either.


BTW, if anyone wants to comment on that link to the Iranian website from the day after the speech, please do. The western media influence must be far-reaching indeed.

guess you dont understand sarcasm. ill remember to attach an lol next time.

michelleelise

catefrances wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but didnt you hear?????????? he wants to wipe israel OFF THE MAP!

I guess you didn't read the Iranian press release, either.


BTW, if anyone wants to comment on that link to the Iranian website from the day after the speech, please do. The western media influence must be far-reaching indeed.

guess you dont understand sarcasm. ill remember to attach an lol next time.

I speak fluent sarcasm I guess I misunderstood yours and thought you were implying he didn't actually say that. sorry.

Boxes&Books

NPR ombud says Israel lobby was ’successful’ in changing coverage

Last week on a local call-in show on WOSU, Ohio, NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard virtually boasted about NPR’s giving into “pro-Israeli” pressure: “NPR is not as much criticized for its Middle East coverage as it was back in 2002, which it was attacked quite strongly by a pro-Israeli group. And that group was in many ways successful, and as a result NPR went back and re-evaluated the coverage and how things are handled and started doing things a little differently....”

One collapse leads to another. I called in and thanked Shepard for her previous stance of asking that reporters describe Israeli colonies--built on stolen land--as violations of International Law, rather than use the Israeli term “disputed.” I told her, though, that reporters continue to say “disputed.” In a flip-flop, Shepard said, “The reason that it would be ‘disputed’ is that Israelis may feel that this is their land, and they got it fair and square during the war, and then the Palestinians would say, No, this land was stolen from them, --so in that sense, it’s ‘disputed’” (10:26).

The arbiter of ethical reporting violated fairness in her about-face: Donating all of Palestine to Israel—Greater Israel accomplished... .No country can legally win land “fair and square [through] war” ....“Disputed” isn’t a disinterested label, but the Israeli government’s.... Israel’s violation of International Law is crucial context listeners deserve. And Shepard herself had bragged about that “rich” “context” is “NPR’s signature” of “good journalism.”

So Shepard reversed her answer to me from an April 1 call. At that time she said: “The story about Israel intending to build 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem is a big story. Susie, I've brought that up about: ‘Let's not use the term 'disputed.'”

I wanted to probe Shepard’s turnabout last week, but WOSU host Ann Fisher again shielded the ombud by putting me on hold, and Shepard shifted from defense to offense: NPR’s job “isn’t to advocate. Maybe you have more of a vested interest or a personal interest in the story,” she told me, “so you listen to it in a way where you’re picking up on a key word.” Exactly. NPR’s job isn’t to advocate Israel’s interest, which it does when it uses Israeli-government terms like "disputed."

Shepard asserted that “An NPR story may be fair, but it is also in many ways neutral.” Would NPR give equal time to segregationists applauding Bull Connor’s hoses and dogs? Would NPR suppress news of Rev. Martin Luther King and the marches for Civil Rights? Why not? Because to do so would deceive a 1960s audience about liberation from injustice.

Both times I talked with Shepard, she referred to the evaluations made by hired assessor John Felton; but the problem with his reports is precisely that they merely count how many Israeli and Palestinian stories and spokespeople appear. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideas ... 2_2010.pdf, http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideas ... 4_2009.pdf

Such tallies are easy, and not journalism. Felton neglects the hard work of comparing the assertions to reality: how much land Israelis steal, how many more people they kill and injure than casualties they suffer, how many children's growth they stunt through malnourishment. The coverage is reduced to the dreadful idea of “competing narratives,” with no referee. Shepard can only proclaim, “bias is in the eye of the beholder,” when NPR discards facts like International Law.

George Orwell warned that “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politic ... sh/e_polit. Orwell’s "The Road to Wigan Pier," say, doesn’t give equal time to the mine owners, but simply depicts miners’ terrible suffering.

NPR functionaries like Alicia Shepard and Ann Fisher are gatekeepers at the U.S. checkpoints: keeping Americans in ignorance.

Later Gabrielle, another caller to the Ann Fisher, showed how NPR responds to some progressive demands (26:10). First, a compliment about what an admirable job Shepard is doing. Then, the suggestion of a “tiny... constructive criticism" that Fisher supports: removing sexist terms like ombudsman from NPR. Hilariously, Shepard at first brushed off the request. The caller responded that language like "fireman" and "firefighter" limits children's aspirations. Fisher chimed in. Gabrielle spoke of the subtlety of saying "one man's x." Shepard agreed it’s an important topic--"This is something that I do care very much about"--and the disparity of male and female voices is an issue she’s studied.

Then she summed up: “How will we ever move on, if we don’t address it?”

How, indeed? posting.php?mode=reply&f=13&t=142170http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/npr-ombudsperson-says-israel-lobby-was-successful-in-changing-coverage.html

catefrances

michelle822 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

guess you dont understand sarcasm. ill remember to attach an lol next time.

I speak fluent sarcasm I guess I misunderstood yours and thought you were implying he didn't actually say that. sorry.

well tbh i dont know what he said.. i didnt hear him say it and besides i dont speak farsi.

michelleelise

catefrances wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

guess you dont understand sarcasm. ill remember to attach an lol next time.

I speak fluent sarcasm I guess I misunderstood yours and thought you were implying he didn't actually say that. sorry.

well tbh i dont know what he said.. i didnt hear him say it and besides i dont speak farsi.

Yeah, me neither. And apparently it's a tough concept to translate. I had thought it'd be a safe bet to rely on the Iranian government press release, but apparently not...

catefrances

michelle822 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

well tbh i dont know what he said.. i didnt hear him say it and besides i dont speak farsi.

Yeah, me neither. And apparently it's a tough concept to translate. I had thought it'd be a safe bet to rely on the Iranian government press release, but apparently not...

youd think so wouldnt you??

perhaps the wrong emPHAsis was put on the wrong syLLAble and somthing was lost in translation.

either way israel disappearing into the mediterranean isnt gonna happen. israel need to stop plowing over people, the palestinians need to find their gandhi and the US needs to step back and help uphold international law instead of sucking at the teat of self interest.

Boxes&Books

1933: Zionists sign a deal with Hitler - The Transfer Agreement

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2010/10/13 ... agreement/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3we8Sg9 ... _embedded#!

Byrnzie

michelle822 wrote:

I'm not saying there weren't forced expulsions, but that quote from Ben-Gurion is debated as being taken out of context:

"After reading Karsh’s book, Morris, who had originally contended that Ben-Gurion unequivocally supported forced expulsions, reconsidered his view and admitted that he should have examined the original letter rather than rely on a secondary source. In an otherwise critical review of Karsh’s book appearing in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Volume XXVII, Number 2, Winter, 1998), Morris wrote:

Had I gone to the original, I would have noticed that the quotation is problematic, as three lines had been crossed out (by Ben-Gurion or someone else, subsequently), vitally changing the meaning of the passage. The text (with the lines crossed out) reads: "We must expel Arabs and take their place..."(which is how Teveth quoted the passage). But if the crossed-out lines are deciphered and reintroduced, then Ben-Gurion’s stance becomes equivocal, rendering the passage: "And then we will have to use force... without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place..."

Benny Morris also said this:



http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

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

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

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

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

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

michelle822 wrote:

Well, you're quoting hardliners and right-wingers. The equivalent of quoting Cheney and then making assumptions of the intent of all Americans based upon what he says. A lot of Israelis and non-Israeli Jews do take issue with those things, despite your claim.

I quoted the current Israeli Prime Minister.

As for Israeli's taking issue with such things, they're in the minority.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... s-1.125899
Survey: Most Jewish Israelis support transfer of Arabs
By Yulie Khromchenko

Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports expelling Arabs, according to a survey of the public's views on political extremism conducted by Haifa University's Center for the Study of National Security.

The survey indicates that 63.7 percent of the Jewish respondents said the government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate. Almost half of the Jewish respondents - 48.6 percent - said the treatment that Arabs in Israel receive from the government is too sympathetic.

More than half - 55.3 percent - think Israeli Arabs endanger the state's security and 45.3 percent support depriving Israeli Arabs of the right to vote and to be elected. About one-quarter of the Jewish respondents said they would consider voting for a party like the outlawed Kach, if such a party were contending in the next elections.

The survey, headed by Professor Gavriel Ben David, consisted of telephone interviews with a representative sample of 1,016 Israelis.

Respondents were also asked about another minority - the foreign workers. A large majority of the Jewish respondents - 72.1 percent - favored restricting foreign workers' entrance into Israel and 54.2 percent said the economic situation was getting worse because the foreign workers were taking the jobs.

Dr. Dafna Kanti-Nissim, a partner in the study, said the survey reflects a known phenomenon in the world, in which a threatened public tends to develop hostility toward the minorities living in it.

"There is a prevalent conception in the public that identifies Israeli Arabs with the threat of terror," says Kanti-Nissim. "The foreign workers are seen as an economic threat, although in fact they are not threatening the work places of most of the Israelis."

The survey indicates a worrying increase in the extremism of the respondents' attitudes.

Byrnzie

michelle822 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech

Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim.[10]

Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]

The translation presented by the official Iranian Government press Islamic Republic News Agency translated the statement as "wiped off the map" this was challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, word for word, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[12] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."[14]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

michelleelise

I wasn't arguing Morris' politics because I don't like them. I've just seen that quote around before and recognize it's not accurate, regardless of what Ben-Gurion did (of which I'm also aware).

And I know who Netanyahu is, thanks. He's right-wing, which is what I said.

You said no one cares and that's not true, even if it's a minority. Most of my Israel news comes from our cousins who are left-wing and can't stand Netanyahu or the people to the right of him, or the settlers whom they call fanatics. My cousin's best friend of 20 years is Arab. Maybe the view I get is skewed because of all that, but I know people care.

The percentages from the poll you posted are really discouraging, though. I googled the poll and got a version of it from two years ago where it was only 50% instead of 62% so it seems to be getting worse. But I also recently saw a poll of American Jews that showed they're mostly not in favor of the settlements and they are open to US government breaking with Israel on that, I think. I don't remember the numbers but do remember thinking that they were high enough that Obama should totally be putting his foot down on that issue more forcefully.