The Israeli Police State
Comments
-
This is pure bullshit. Why don't you explain what was on offer and what 'huge sacrifices' Israel was prepared to make? The only concessions/sacrifices Israel was prepared to make at Camp David were concessions relating to what it wanted, and had nothing whatsoever to do with what Israel was entitled to under International law. Israel offered the Palestinians nothing but an Apartheid system of Bantustans.Regarding the Barak-Arafat affair at camp david, virtually everyone who had anything to do with it places the blame entirely on Arafat for turning down Barak's offer. In fact, even the Saudi prince Bandar was furious with Arafat, calling his rejection a 'crime'. Israel was willing to make huge sacrifices to give the Palestinians a State but this cannot happen without both sides being willing.
what's your point here? Hamas has already said that once Israel withdraws, talks can begin. It is Israel who is choosing not to do this because they do not want peace - they want ultimate surrender by the Palestinians.This is why resolution 242 calls on both sides, not Israeli unilateral withdrawal:
‘Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force’
prove me otherwise. I know I'm asking so much of you, but really, just saying osmething is ridiculous but not proving otherwise shows that you don't know what you're talking about. I've already asked - If Hamas only wants ultimate destruction of Israel and to throw every Jew into the sea, then why did they say that once Israel withdraws to the '67 borders (something the international community agrees on) talks can begin?I do not need to quote the Hamas and PLO charters, we all know that both call for Israel's complete destruction. Your suggestion that they only refer to the west bank and Gaza is ridiculous.
This is not true. Hamas has given terms - terms which the international community agrees on. Israel, however, only wants the unconditional surrender of the Palestinians.There will not be peace unless the Arabs give up there dream of destroying the hated 'Zionist Entity.
don't get carried away here. It was not simply the need to survive. you guys seem to love to quote Hamas and PLO charters, but you ignore the charter for the Zionist movement which was to create a Jewish homeland from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea - this was ever since the 1880s, and the Zionist leaders knew that this charter involved an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. Zionist underground movements began massacres and bombings since the early 1900s.Lastly regarding my comments about the Jewish need to survive in the face of persecution. You said that this was not the case because the Zionist movement began before the holocaust. This clearly demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of Jewish history. The holocaust was the climax of a long history of pogroms, ghettoiation, and massacres. The first major movement of jews to Israel was in 1881 as a direct response to persecution, the Zionist movement itself was born of the need to survive in the face of widespread unrelenting antisemitism.
Trying to victimize the Jewish people to justify the terrible oppression, the occupation, the human rights violations, etc of Israel is simply ridiculous. Not that the Jewish people have not gone through the same things, but you'd think they'd be more sympathetic; not wanting to do the same thing to another people.0 -
Hi.
Your attempt to wriggle out of the FACT that Jordan is the Arab Palestinian State that the Palestinians have ALREADY been given is rather weak. You laugh at my map link because it was from a christian website, hmmm. Ok find me a map of mandatory Palestine that does not include Jordan. Here is another site, but I expect you will find a reason not to believe it since it contradicts your 'Israel the great oppressor' belief.
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_maps.php
I see you are willing to drop your rather dubious sources and quote Benny Morris when it suits you. If you are willing to accept him as a reliable source, why not accept his reports on Dier Yassin. Your friend Noam Chomsky claims that ‘250 defenceless people were slaughtered’ , whilst Morris affirms that the Jews encountered stiff resistance at Deir Yassin, in which five Jews were killed and more than thirty were wounded. Morris concludes that the Arab death toll was exaggerated, and puts the number of casualties, including combatants at 100-110. Furthermore, as I said before, Morris concludes that the Palestinian refugee problem was 'born of war, not by design', which you have ignored.
Regarding the PLO charter; if I really need to spell it out for you: here is a link to the charter that highlights the articles that explicitly call for Israel’s destruction:
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_plo_charter_revise.php
Regarding Hamas, here is a link that shows that their charter calls for the ‘obliteration’ of Israel. It also shows that Hamas fervently believes in the authenticity of the anti-semitic document ‘the protocols of the wise men of Zion’, hence, as was also true of Hitler, Hamas sees the destruction of all Jews as vital for the future of humanity.
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
The tone and inaccuracy of your posts about Israel point to your having been heavily influenced by either Noam Chomsky or Edward Said. I suggest that you also read the other side of the story, such as ‘The case for Israel’ by Alan Dershowitz before perpetuating Chomsky’s misleading and often inaccurate accusations. Reading Benny Morris’s books is also vital for a balanced view, not just utilizing Chomsky’s highly selective Morris quotes. An unbiased investigation of History reveals that their has never been, as Chomsky claims, an ‘independent Palestinian Nation’, rather records show that prior to the arrival of the Jewish pioneers, the Arab residents saw themselves as inhabitants of ‘southern Syria’, as the Arab Higher Committee stated at the UN in 1947: ‘Palestine was part of the Province of Syria…politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political identity.’
It also must be remembered that most of the Arab residents present in 1948 were as new to the land as the Jews. In fact many went to Palestine to work for the Jewish pioneers. The anti-Zionist British administration also turned a blind eye to illegal Arab immigration in order to undermine the Zionist project. This led Churchill to comment in 1939 that:
‘Far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied until their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.’
The truth is that, prior to Zionism, Palestine was largely empty. In 1857 the British Consul reported that “The country is, in a considerable degree, empty of Inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is a body of population”. 10 years later Mark Twain visited the land and commented: ‘It is a hopeless, dreary, heart-broken land … Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes…Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village’. However there were small ancient communities of both Jews and Arabs, like the oldest Jewish community in the world at Hebron, which was annihilated by the Arabs in 1947, and the Yemenite Jewish community in East Jerusalem that the Arabs destroyed in 1948. the difference is that the Jews have a historical claim to Statehood due to two past commonwealths, whilst the Arabs have no such history in the land and had no nationalist movement until AFTER Zionism. Despite this the Arabs were given 73% of Palestine as an Arab Palestinian homeland called Jordan. Peace.0 -
P.S. Your allegation that the Rabbinical prohibition of intermarriage of Arabs and Jews is discriminatory against Arabs is absurd. If anything it is the JEWS that are discriminated against since the restriction is only upon them. You should also remember that the restriction is upon Jews marrying any kind of Gentile (non Jew), not just Arabs, and that if a Jewish and Arab Israeli couple choose to marry abroad, the State recognises their marriage.
Peace.0 -
"Christian friends of Israel" being called a 'christian website' is an understatement. It's simply not a credible source. if that's the only source you can find to back you up, then that should already show that you're mistaken.timsinclair wrote:You laugh at my map link because it was from a christian website, hmmm.
From their own website:Christian Friends of Israel wrote:Christian Friends of Israel (CFI) is a ministry that exists to:
* Comfort and support the People of Israel through practical means
* Inform Christians around the world of God's plan for Israel and the Church's responsibility towards the Jewish people
* Make the Jewish people aware of our solidarity with them
Why the obsession with the British mandated Palestine? You're simply trying to convince people that Palestine and Jordan are the same. You simply want to try and justify the Palestinians dispossession with this blatant lie.Ok find me a map of mandatory Palestine that does not include Jordan.
Here's a map showing Palestine in 1946.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story583.html
And another one showing the area in May 1948...
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story565.html
Why don't you accept his reports on Deir Yassin?I see you are willing to drop your rather dubious sources and quote Benny Morris when it suits you.
Previously you claimed:
Seems you don't mind contradicting yourself. All mainstream historians now admit there was deliberate ethnic cleansing in 1948. Why can't you also admit it?timsinclair wrote:..the [false] reports of a massacre at Deir Yassin"
Norman Finkelstein: 'Shlomo Ben-Ami..former Israeli foreign minister..[and] a respected historian...provides this capsule summary of the "reality on the ground" during the 1948 war: :an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by it's exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, and at times atrocities and massacres, it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community." Sifting the evidence, he concludes that in fact Israel premeditatedly expelled Palestinians in accordance with the Zionist "philosophy of transfer", which "had a long pedigree in Zionist thought," framed Zionist leader David be Gurion's strategic-ideological" vision, and it provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field actively to encourage the eviction of the local population."
To put it simply, you thought Benny Morris was a reliable source, so I used his own quotes to contradict what you claimed to be true. However, it is no secret that he has an incredible bias towards Israel:
Benny Morris:
"In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country...In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."
According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?
"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100...
..The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres...
...Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
oh, really?Furthermore, as I said before, Morris concludes that the Palestinian refugee problem was 'born of war, not by design', which you have ignored.
Benny Morris:
"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."
Interviewer: We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.
"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."
Interviewer: There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.
"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that...
..There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."
I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?
"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."
Interviewer: A large part of the responsibility for the hatred of the Palestinians rests with us. After all, you yourself showed us that the Palestinians experienced a historical catastrophe.
"True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so important to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important is to imprison the murderer or to execute him."
Interviewer: Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?
"The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers."
Interviewer: What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?
"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."
Interviewer: To fence them in? To place them under closure?
"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
more bullshit. why don't you answer my question? I've asked it many times: If Hamas is so bent on pushing every Jew into the sea, THEN WHY HAVE THEY SAID ONCE ISRAEL WITHDRAWS TO THE '67 BORDERS, THEY'LL BEGIN TALKING?? do I have to put it in bold? do I have to make the font a little bigger? why is Hamas calling for the SAME thing the international community is calling for - to end the occupation of oppression of Palestine - while Israel ignores all of this?Regarding Hamas, here is a link that shows that their charter calls for the ‘obliteration’ of Israel. It also shows that Hamas fervently believes in the authenticity of the anti-semitic document ‘the protocols of the wise men of Zion’, hence, as was also true of Hitler, Hamas sees the destruction of all Jews as vital for the future of humanity.
WHAT?! Did you just honestly and sincerely compare scholars like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said to the likes of Alan Dershowitz????The tone and inaccuracy of your posts about Israel point to your having been heavily influenced by either Noam Chomsky or Edward Said. I suggest that you also read the other side of the story, such as ‘The case for Israel’ by Alan Dershowitz before perpetuating Chomsky’s misleading and often inaccurate accusations.
This comment sums you up perfectly. Alan Dershowitz's 'The Case For Israel' has been successfully exposed as nothing but plagiarism and a fraud in Norman Finkelstein's book 'Beyond Chutzpah'. I suggest you read it.
ah yes, as you can see above, Benny Morris clearly has a BALANCED view...Reading Benny Morris’s books is also vital for a balanced view, not just utilizing Chomsky’s highly selective Morris quotes.
Another lie. I can see that you've read Dershowitz's book and base all of your lies on that. It's interesting that these lies concerning Palestine being virtually uninhabited until the arrival of the Jews were plagiarized by Dershowitz from another exposed fraud: Joan Peter's 'From Time Immemorial'.It also must be remembered that most of the Arab residents present in 1948 were as new to the land as the Jews. In fact many went to Palestine to work for the Jewish pioneers.
anti-Zionist British administration? are you fucking kidding me? The British are the ones who forced the Arabs to accept Jewish and Zionist mass immigration against their will. Just because the British (although late) saw what was coming out of it and was trying to slow the process down means absolutely nothing. and you're trying to talk about illegal ARAB immigration?! what about illegal JEWISH immigration??The anti-Zionist British administration also turned a blind eye to illegal Arab immigration in order to undermine the Zionist project.
you're naive if that's what you think... I mean, seriously... no one even tries to argue the fact that the Arabs have a strong historical presence in Palestine.the difference is that the Jews have a historical claim to Statehood due to two past commonwealths, whilst the Arabs have no such history in the land and had no nationalist movement until AFTER Zionism.
'...the historical record shows that the Palestine did not always include the east bank, and that the Jordan River has often served as a military and political division. The history of the area, ancient, medieval, and modern, does not entitle one to assert, as do advocates of Jordan-is-Palestine, that "the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was understood as British recognition of a Jewish National Homeland in all of historic Palestine"-meaning today's Jordan and Israel. The territory promised by the Balfour Declaration can justifiably be interpreted as ending at the Jordan River or as extending further.Despite this the Arabs were given 73% of Palestine as an Arab Palestinian homeland called Jordan.
A few months of rule that was neither de facto nor de jure is hardly reason, seventy years later, to call Jordan a part of Palestine. Besides, it is preposterous to base today's major decisions of war and peace on the transient interests of the British Empire after World War I. That Jordan was briefly part of the Palestine Mandate does not establish a vital link; it merely recalls a historical curiosity. As L. Dean Brown observes, "Jordan is Palestine only in the sense that Nebraska, which was part of the Louisiana Purchase, is still Louisiana.
The purpose of this change in nomenclature is to undercut any Arab claim to sovereignty over territory Israel now holds. It also makes the Palestinians look greedy; they already have a whole loaf and they want another. It implies that while Palestinians should leave Israel alone, they should feel free to make changes in the Hashemite Kingdom. It also suggests that, because Israel has at least as valid a claim to the east bank as the Palestinians do to the west, the granting of the eastern part of Palestine to Arabs represents a form of Zionist generosity. Finally, it implies that the Israelis may be justified in expelling Arabs to Jordan, their true Palestinian patrimony. In this way, the kindred notions of Jordan-is-Palestine and Greater Israel join the demographic and political issues facing Israel today to create the political agenda of the Israeli right.
The Jordan-is-Palestine idea is not only historically wrong, legally superficial, geographically ignorant, and politically procrustean, but its implementation would be extremely dangerous.'
why do you end every post with the word 'peace', when clearly you have no such good intentions? You support Israeli crimes and Israeli expansionism. What does this have to do with 'Peace'?Peace.0 -
the fact that you actually justify blatant discrimination proves nothing in your favor. thanks for trying, though.timsinclair wrote:P.S. Your allegation that the Rabbinical prohibition of intermarriage of Arabs and Jews is discriminatory against Arabs is absurd. If anything it is the JEWS that are discriminated against since the restriction is only upon them. You should also remember that the restriction is upon Jews marrying any kind of Gentile (non Jew), not just Arabs, and that if a Jewish and Arab Israeli couple choose to marry abroad, the State recognises their marriage.0 -
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitbeck01272007.html
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3041
Ilan Pappe - 'The ethnic cleansing of Palestine':
'...in 1948, the Zionist movement waged a war against the Palestinain people in order to implement its long term plans of ethnic cleansing (whereas Israeli historians, including 'new historians', claimed that the war was waged by the Arab world against the state of Israel in order to eliminate it and it resulted in expulsions of Palestinians). The Arab world tried to prevent this cleansing, but was too fragmented, self-centered and ineffective to stop the uprooting of half of Palestine's native population, the destruction of half of its villages and towns and the killing of thousands of its people.
And since that ethnic cleansing was successfully implemented in almost 80% of Palestine without any global or regional repercussions - the ethnic cleansing policy continues ever since 1967 in the remaining 20% of the country. Creating a Jewish state in historical Palestine cleansed of Palestinians is still the ideolgoical infrastructure on which the state of Israel is based. How to achieve this goal is a divisive issue between Left Zionists - hoping to negotiate a settlement that would leave a small number of Palestinains in a greater Israel and the Right Zionsts willing to implement a more direct cleasning policy from the same area even today.
The book uses the accepted scholarly definition of Ethnic Cleansing to show its academic as well legal applicability to the case of Palestine and argues that since in the eyes of the world - including the State Department and the UN - ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, this how we should view the Israeli actions in the past and Israel's policies in the present.
..The book is based on three major sources. First it uses new material from the Israeli military archives that was released in the late 1990s. Secondly, it is based on a re-reading of the older archival material through the prism of the ethnic cleansing paradigm. Thirdly, it uses extensively the Palestinian oral history archives.'0 -
why do you end every post with the word 'peace', when clearly you have no such good intentions? You support Israeli crimes and Israeli expansionism. What does this have to do with 'Peace'?
I say 'peace' because I believe in peace but equally in truth. Many are willing to give up on truth for the sake of peace but I believe that true peace can only be gained through upholding truth.The Jordan-is-Palestine idea is not only historically wrong, legally superficial, geographically ignorant, and politically procrustean, but its implementation would be extremely dangerous.'
The FACT that Jordan is Palestine is a vital truth, not so that Arabs can be driven out of Israel, but so that the lie that the Jews were not willing to share Palestine can be exposed. You clearly are still unwilling to accept this fact of history and showing me a map of Palestine AFTER Jordan was carved out of Palestine illustrates this. When Britain recieved the mandate in 1920, it included Jordan, this is a fact. Winston Churchill decided to split Palestine in 1922 and the Arabs were given all the territory east of the Jordan as the Arab State of Trans-Jordan in 1923. You know this is true so stop trying to dodge it.
Regarding Dier Yassin. You are incorrect, I do accept Benny Morris's description of the horrors and injustices there. Many Arab civilians there were shot by the Jews. However, although some of the Jewish fighters lost control, Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre. In the build up to the war, the Arabs began ambushing supply convoys en route to Jerusalem and attempted to cut off the highway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. On the 6th of April the Irgun launched Operation Nachshon to re-open the road and occupy the overlooking Arab villages. Deir Yassin was one such village. There is evidence that some of the Arab prisoners were killed in custody and this is wrong, but that does not make the whole thing a massacre. Your 'great scholar' Noam Chomsky is simply wrong when he says that '250 defencless people were slaughtered', there was a battle at Dier Yassin and only 100-110 Arabs were killed (as you have now admitted) and this INCLUDED combatants.
Regarding the land being empty before Zionism. Look, if you view everything through the prism of Edwards Said's 'Orientalism' then the whole enterprise of History is false since, as Said says in 'Orientalism':‘It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequentially a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.’ However Said's thesis is WRONG, it was only accepted in the first place place because it fed the west's post-colonial guilt. The falsehood of Said's thesis is shown by Ibn Warraq's observation that although German Orientalists were ‘the greatest of all scholars of the orient’ they had no empire, a fact that may explain why Said restricts his study to France and England. Furthermore, Said’s analysis seems only to define Muslims as Orientals, at the expense of non-Muslims:
‘For Said, the non-Muslims, and even non-Arabs hardly exist, are occasionally mentioned, are never discussed or acknowledged as Orientals with a history and presence: there are no Copts, no Maronites, no Mandaeans, no Samaritans, no Assyrians, no Greek Orthodox Christians, No Chaldeans, no Berbers, and of course no Jews’
You completely ignore the fact that numerous Jewish communities existed in Palestine at the turn of the century that had existed there for many centuries. The oldest of these, in Hebron, was massacred by the Arabs. This was a true massacre, in which the Arabs went from house to house murdering the innocent, the whole community was annihilated. This was carried out at the orders of the grand mufti of Jerusalem, who was a close ally of Hitler during WW2. The British military administration in Palestine WAS staunchly anti-Zionist during this period, which is another reason that the massacre was allowed to take place. Most of the British soldiers in Palestine had a copy of 'The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion', hence they were reading from the same manual as Hamas.
Regarding Hamas and the PLO, the fact that they have said they will talk to Israel if they withdraw to the green line means something only to the gullible. If you understand something about Islam, you will be aware of the doctrine taquiyya, deception for the sake of Jihad, Arafat was a master at this, he told the west that he just wanted a state in the west bank and Gaza and peace with Israel whilst all the time telling his own people that it was just a tactic in the war to destroy Israel. Before he died, all western leaders realised that Arafat had decieved them, they hope that Abbas will not do the same but they are not naive enough to believe Hamas. You shouldn't be either.
Peace.0 -
Your debate tactic to NOT quote me is not as clever as you think it is. I understand you don't want to show that you're ignoring 75% of my post, but it doesn't help your case at all. Moving on:
I suggest you don't read books written by people like Alan Dershowitz if you're interested in truth.timsinclair wrote:I say 'peace' because I believe in peace but equally in truth. Many are willing to give up on truth for the sake of peace but I believe that true peace can only be gained through upholding truth.
Actually, many Arabs had gone and claimed independence in Jordan, which was, SURPRISE- INDEPENDENT of Palestine. These Jordanians wanted a separate, independent nation and technically took over the land. Churchill didn't simply 'decide' to give it to them, he basically just didn't retaliate against them.The FACT that Jordan is Palestine is a vital truth, not so that Arabs can be driven out of Israel, but so that the lie that the Jews were not willing to share Palestine can be exposed. You clearly are still unwilling to accept this fact of history and showing me a map of Palestine AFTER Jordan was carved out of Palestine illustrates this. When Britain recieved the mandate in 1920, it included Jordan, this is a fact. Winston Churchill decided to split Palestine in 1922 and the Arabs were given all the territory east of the Jordan as the Arab State of Trans-Jordan in 1923. You know this is true so stop trying to dodge it.
However, you still ignore all the quotes and sources that have been provided that explain why Jordan is NOT Palestine- you, however, choose to ignore it, providing no sources.
http://www.deiryassin.org/mas.htmlRegarding Dier Yassin. You are incorrect, I do accept Benny Morris's description of the horrors and injustices there. Many Arab civilians there were shot by the Jews. However, although some of the Jewish fighters lost control, Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet
'In his book 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' [Ilan Pappe] quotes Ben Gurion writing the commanders of the Haganah Brigades on 11 May 1948 that 'the cleansing of Palestine remains the prime objective of Plan Dalet'.
Benny Morris:
'[Plan Dalet] constituted a strategic-doctrinal and carte blanche for expulsions [from villages that resisted or might threaten the Yishuv] by front, brigade, district and battalion commanders (who in each case argued military necessity) and it gave commanders, post facto, formal, persuasive cover for their actions.'
Plan Dalet (Plan D)
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicaldocuments/31.shtml
'Launching pre-planned counter-attacks on enemy bases and supply lines in the heart of his territory. whether within the borders of the country [Palestine] or in neighboring countries...
Preventing the enemy from using frontline positions within his territory which can easily be used for launching attacks. This will be effected by occupying and controlling them.
Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:
Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state...'
It cannot be argued that Deir Yassin was not a massacre. It was. All the credible historians agree, and you trying to prove otherwise only hurts whatever the hell it is you're actually trying to show here.There is evidence that some of the Arab prisoners were killed in custody and this is wrong, but that does not make the whole thing a massacre.
yes, it was reported in the New York Times that 250 were killed.Your 'great scholar' Noam Chomsky is simply wrong when he says that '250 defencless people were slaughtered',
You fail the mention that half the people killed were women and children. You fail to mention the orphans left after the Zionist gangs killed and drove out all 750 people from the village. You fail to mention any of these, and your pathetic attempt to label the Deir Yassin massacre as a 'battle' is ridiculous. And I, for one, think it's incredibly despicable to write something like 'only 100-110 Arabs were killed'.there was a battle at Dier Yassin and only 100-110 Arabs were killed (as you have now admitted) and this INCLUDED combatants.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/arabs-and-jews-unite-to-commemorate-massacre-687405.html
'The facts of the slaughter were never denied at the time. The Arab village of Deir Yassin was attacked by Jewish commandos of the Stern Gang and Irgun, then led by Menachem Begin, on 9 April 1948; after its capture, they murdered more than 100 - perhaps as many as 254 - men, women and children. Some women were butchered with knives, others were shot with their children.
Official Zionist leaders of the Haganah denounced the killings. Several victims lived an hour longer than their families as they were taken by truck through the streets of Jeru-salem, then returned to the quarry outside Deir Yassin where they were killed and their bodies burnt by Jewish gang members.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
'Deir Yassin was different from the village of al-Qastal that had recently been attacked by the Haganah, in that it did not participate directly in the conflict. The villagers reportedly wanted to remain neutral in the war and they had repeatedly resisted help and alliances with the Palestinian irregulars. Instead they had made a pact with Haganah to not help the irregulars as long as they were not the target of military operations.[11]
The inhabitants had even remained cooperative while the Haganah took the strategic Sharafa ridge between Deir Yassin and the nearby ALA base Ein Karem. Haganah intelligence confirmed after the village had been captured that it in fact had stayed "faithful allies of the western Jerusalem sector".[12]
Yoma Ben-Sasson, Haganah commander in Givat Shaul, later recalled that "there was not even one incident between Deir Yassin and the Jews".'
Honestly, I highly suggest you stop arguing the massacre of Deir Yassin. It's not open for discussion on whether or not it was a massacre.
Congratulations on having read 'Orientalism'... actually, you may not have even read it, just looked up criticisms of it online to support your crazy theology. Also, do you mind providing a link to the where you are getting your quotes from? I have never had the opportunity to read Said's 'Orientalism', however, either way, I fail to see the relevance in this.Regarding the land being empty before Zionism. Look, if you view everything through the prism of Edwards Said's 'Orientalism' then the whole enterprise of History is false since, as Said says in 'Orientalism':‘It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequentially a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.’ However Said's thesis is WRONG, it was only accepted in the first place place because it fed the west's post-colonial guilt. The falsehood of Said's thesis is shown by Ibn Warraq's observation that although German Orientalists were ‘the greatest of all scholars of the orient’ they had no empire, a fact that may explain why Said restricts his study to France and England. Furthermore, Said’s analysis seems only to define Muslims as Orientals, at the expense of non-Muslims:
‘For Said, the non-Muslims, and even non-Arabs hardly exist, are occasionally mentioned, are never discussed or acknowledged as Orientals with a history and presence: there are no Copts, no Maronites, no Mandaeans, no Samaritans, no Assyrians, no Greek Orthodox Christians, No Chaldeans, no Berbers, and of course no Jews’
This is completely irrelevant. Before the Zionist movement began, Arabs (both Muslim and Christian) and Jews had lived in peace in the region for hundreds of years.You completely ignore the fact that numerous Jewish communities existed in Palestine at the turn of the century that had existed there for many centuries.
I'd like to refer you to a more recent, relevant massacre in Hebron...The oldest of these, in Hebron, was massacred by the Arabs. This was a true massacre, in which the Arabs went from house to house murdering the innocent, the whole community was annihilated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/685792.stm
Again, you make claims without providing any sources. Show me how the British mandate of Palestine was anti-Zionist.The British military administration in Palestine WAS staunchly anti-Zionist during this period, which is another reason that the massacre was allowed to take place. Most of the British soldiers in Palestine had a copy of 'The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion', hence they were reading from the same manual as Hamas.
First of all, bringing up taqiyya - especially in your pathetic attempt to accurately define what it is - is just plain irrelevant. Other than the fact that you clearly have no actual knowledge of Islam, you should know that taqiyya is more common among Shiite Muslims, and most Sunnis condemn its use except for very extreme cases. Either way, it's completely irrelevant.Regarding Hamas and the PLO, the fact that they have said they will talk to Israel if they withdraw to the green line means something only to the gullible. If you understand something about Islam, you will be aware of the doctrine taquiyya, deception for the sake of Jihad, Arafat was a master at this, he told the west that he just wanted a state in the west bank and Gaza and peace with Israel whilst all the time telling his own people that it was just a tactic in the war to destroy Israel. Before he died, all western leaders realised that Arafat had decieved them, they hope that Abbas will not do the same but they are not naive enough to believe Hamas. You shouldn't be either.
Your entire point in this quote is basically saying 'we shouldn't trust the Muslims' but giving no reason other than the lie that something in their religion preaches deceiving people (I'm guessing to kill every Jew on Earth)... really, it only hurts whatever credibility you may think you have.
Now, let's move back to reality, shall we:
David Ben-Gurion: I am unwilling to forego even one percent of Zionism for 'peace' (1925)
Moshe Dayan: Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. (1969)
David Ben-Gurion: We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal. (1937)
It is a FACT that the Zionist movement has been lying to and deceiving the world for years.0 -
I'd also like to point out a hilarious contradiction in your post. You claim that:
"Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre."
however you then try to argue that Deir Yassin was a 'battle' and NOT a massacre...
so... which is it? in the above quote, you claim it was a massacre, just not 'pre-mediated'... but then you claim it wasn't a massacre, just a 'battle'...0 -
timsinclair wrote:..supporters of Israel contest that they fled due to instructions from the Arab leaders via radio broadcasts. It is likely that both of these factors contributed to the flight of the Palestinian Arabs, as did the [false] reports of a massacre at Deir Yassintimsinclair wrote:Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre.timsinclair wrote:There is evidence that some of the Arab prisoners were killed in custody and this is wrong, but that does not make the whole thing a massacre.
Actually, all of the Arabs that survived the initial massacre were shot later that same day.
"Pro-Palestinian commentators hold that the flight of the Arabs was a result of ‘Israeli terror’ and ‘direct expulsion.’ Whilst supporters of Israel contest that they fled due to instructions from the Arab leaders via radio broadcasts. It is likely that both of these factors contributed to the flight of the Palestinian Arabs"
Actually the radio broadcasts never happened. This has been documented and even mainstream Jewish historians confirm that the report of Arab radio broadcasts was an Israeli hoax.
The BBC monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948, and those records, and companion ones by a U.S. monitoring unit, could be seen at the British Museum. Dr. Childers decided to go through the lot. His conclusion was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims
"There was not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put".0 -
I wonder if they spend this much time debating about Pearl Jam on the Arab-Israeli Peace Website?0
-
"Since Israel began making `goodwill gestures` to the Palestinian Authority last year, it has arrested more than four times the number of Palestinians it released from prison, former Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouthi said on Monday."
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=285960 -
Your debate tactic to NOT quote me is not as clever as you think it is. I understand you don't want to show that you're ignoring 75% of my post, but it doesn't help your case at all.
Hi Outlaw.
Its not a tactic, its just that I do not have time to respond to so many accusations against Israel in one go. I suggest that posting such ridiculously huge wall of text does not help your case (it makes your post sound like rants). Perhaps if you were to stick to 2 or 3 points at a time this would be a much more interesting thread.
I apologise for inferring that since you regard Edward Said as a ‘great scholar’, you must have read his books, did it come to you in a revelation of his greatness? Or, more likely through the worship given to him by your friend Noam Chomsky? By the way, your attempt to discredit me by accusing me of contradiction is so lame that I must quote it:I'd also like to point out a hilarious contradiction in your post. You claim that:
"Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre."
however you then try to argue that Deir Yassin was a 'battle' and NOT a massacre...
so... which is it? in the above quote, you claim it was a massacre, just not 'pre-mediated'... but then you claim it wasn't a massacre, just a 'battle'...
You think that because I said that Dier Yassin was ‘not a premeditated massacre’, I have admitted that it was a ‘massacre’???? I think you need to take some lessons in linguistics (pref not from Chomsky)
Out of your many recent allegations, I have chosen to focus on the many misquotes of Zionist leaders that you employ as evidence of Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians. The last two of these were quotes from BenGurion and Moshe dayan:David Ben-Gurion: We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal. (1937)
At first glance your quote appears to support your allegation that the Jews sought to expel the Arabs as a matter of policy, however if we remove the additions and add back in the deleted parts of the quote, we see that it is quite the opposite:
“We do not wish, and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity in the land [of Israel] that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. But if we have to use force, not to disposess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal.”Moshe Dayan: Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. (1969)
This is a deceptive and dishonest misquote commonly used by anti-Zionists. It is deceptive because it also omits a key sentence and thereby reverses its meaning. You can see how this is done on this link:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=371
Regarding the British Anti-Zionism, please check your facts. Of course the Balfour declaration was not anti-Zionist, but it was reversed by the anti-Zionist Mcdonald white paper in 1939.
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_whitepaper_1939.php
The British military administration during this period was anti-Zionist, that is why they appointed al husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and why they did not intervene to stop the Arab slaughter of Jews across the land. British anti-Zionism is also the reason why thousand of Jews fleeing the death camps were prevented from entering Palestine and were sent back to die in Auschwitz.
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php
Peace.0 -
Wow guys~ my brain is fried after reading all your posts! OK~ yes~It was fried before that, but you'al just did it in for the day! (My boss will not be happy~ but she never is)
DANG~ I have a lot of researching to do before I really comment. I just want to say that I apprieciate you all and please dont slam Outlaw~ he is intence but has great info as you do too! You are all intelligent amazing souls~no need to point fingers and call names etc....debate yes~please~ cuz I am listening~learning~ and find you all so informative! Thank YOU Have a good one!0 -
No, of course you don't. You're too busy trying to make apologies for Israel's crimes.timsinclair wrote:Its not a tactic, its just that I do not have time to respond to so many accusations against Israel in one go.
1. These aren't 'walls of text' they are quotes from sources, something you should try to use more often.I suggest that posting such ridiculously huge wall of text does not help your case (it makes your post sound like rants). Perhaps if you were to stick to 2 or 3 points at a time this would be a much more interesting thread.
2. sticking to 2 or 3 points is what you have done to try to ignore many important issues that show your lies.
disregarding the fact that I said I haven't read 1 of his many books, and that I shouldn't even waste my time answering this question, I've also had many discussions with him.I apologise for inferring that since you regard Edward Said as a ‘great scholar’, you must have read his books, did it come to you in a revelation of his greatness?
Let me guess, your mentor Alan Dershowitz says that Said is a bad bad man, so it must be true, right?
yes.You think that because I said that Dier Yassin was ‘not a premeditated massacre’, I have admitted that it was a ‘massacre’????
Right, because Chomsky isn't considered to be the foremost linguist in the world?I think you need to take some lessons in linguistics (pref not from Chomsky)
It's not a key sentence at all, and it no way reverses the meaning of the passage.
"In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages."
The fact that the Zionists with the help of the JNF bought some of the land from wealthy, absent Ottoman landowners, doesn't excuse the Zionists overall plan for dispossession of the Palestinians and the following ethnic cleansing campaigns of 1948 and beyond, up to the present day.
some more quotes by your beloved leader:
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
- David Ben-Gurion
“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”
- David Ben-Gurion
"I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it".
- David Ben-Gurion
Also, why did you ignore my posting of the details of Plan Dalet, which show clearly the pre-meditated nature of the ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948?
And why did you ignore my mention of the fact that Alan Dershowitz's book - which you obviously love dearly - has been successfully exposed as a fraud, consisting largely of plagiarism? Harvard University even upheld Norman Finkelstein's accusation of plagiarism regarding this book.
Also, why did you ignore my mention of the fact the radio broadcasts never happened? Seems to me like you choose to be blinkered.
anti-Zionist?Regarding the British Anti-Zionism, please check your facts. Of course the Balfour declaration was not anti-Zionist, but it was reversed by the anti-Zionist Mcdonald white paper in 1939.
All that happened was that Britain realized the mistake it made in supporting a Zionist state and the implications it would have... they knew the increasing immigration to Palestine was not a good idea, but I don't even see why you're complaining about this. Your people still got there alright with all the illegal immigration and weapons smuggling that took place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
'In the liberal Western world, opposition to Zionism has often focused on the United Kingdom since it was the UK's decision to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The decision was controversial from the start as some British people believed the Balfour declaration undermined Britain's relationship with Muslims in the Middle East and India. Between 1919 and 1939 the British government steadily reduced its support for Zionism. In 1939 Britain formally announced its intention to create an Arab state in the whole of Palestine, ending its support for the Balfour declaration.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
'British public and government opinion became increasingly less favorable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In Feb 1922 Winston Churchill, a fervent Zionist himself, telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:
'In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles. I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.'
how do you justify the British standing by in 1948 when a quarter of a million Palestinians were being ethnically cleansed?The British military administration during this period was anti-Zionist, that is why they appointed al husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and why they did not intervene to stop the Arab slaughter of Jews across the land.
Ilan Pappe:
'Palestinian sources show clearly how months before the entry of Arab forces into Palestine, and while the British were still responsible for law and order in the country - namely before 15th May - the Jewish forces had already succeeded in forcibly expelling almost a quarter of a million Palestinians'.
Don't play that pathetic card with me, it won't work.British anti-Zionism is also the reason why thousand of Jews fleeing the death camps were prevented from entering Palestine and were sent back to die in Auschwitz.
So you still insist on denying that a massacre took place, despite all of the available evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that all mainstream historians admit that a massacre took place?You think that because I said that Dier Yassin was ‘not a premeditated massacre’, I have admitted that it was a ‘massacre’????
And you try to justify the massacre on the grounds that, according to Menachem Begin the Arabs tried defending themselves with what he described as 'murderous' fire from the old Mausers and muskets had cost them [the attackers] four dead"?
You have an unfortunate tendency to indulge in personal fantasies at the expense of the facts.Regarding Dier Yassin. You are incorrect, I do accept Benny Morris's description of the horrors and injustices there. Many Arab civilians there were shot by the Jews. However, although some of the Jewish fighters lost control, Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre.
Plan Dalet:
'These operations can be divided into the following categories:
Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.
The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system and must be fortified as necessary.'
Ilan Pappe - The ethnic cleansing of Palestine:
'The plan decided upon upon on 10th March 1948, and above all it's systematic implementation in the following months, was a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law as a crime against humanity'.
Hardly.Peace.0 -
It's a shame that the Palestinians are now suffering the same fate the Jews did at the hands of the religious fantasies of the Zionists. Can you not see the double standards at play here? You are attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Israel is an international pariah in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions, and stands accused by many international human rights body's, and the U.N of war crimes and crimes against humanity. So why are you defending these actions? World opinion, including many of the world's Jewish communities, is slowly but surely beginning to learn the truth about the Middle East conflict, and Israel's criminal conduct. So why can't you see it, tim?0
-
tim, the fact that you ignore 70% of my posts speaks a million words.0
-
it seems everything you've pointed out about Edward Said has been lifted from wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)
Tell me, have you ever read the book? And if you have studied it, why would you go to wikipedia for your information and why did you avoid providing links?0 -
Can we pass the patatoe soup please??a little bread with our water would be nice.. CC pass it on0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help