Ever since broadcasts o
f white phosphorous being rained down on the children of Gaza were beamed around the globe last January, Israel has been working overtime to repair the unprecedented damage to its image around the world and provide further justifications for its occupation, ethnic cleansing and racism.
For Israel, propaganda-hasbara-has always been as integral as extreme violence to the formation and maintenance of the state. In fact, the two elements are intertwined; hasbara is needed to justify this extreme violence against the natives and continually portray it as purely defensive. That takes a hit when the world sees pictures of children with horrific white phosphorous burns or policemen murdered en masse at their graduation ceremonies, which is why the Zionist entity and its backers have attacked the Goldstone report (or more accurately, attacking Judge Goldstone himself)-it is the first internationally sanctioned report documenting Israeli violations of human rights and international law.
Aside from slandering those who expose its criminality, hasbara requires Israel to be proactive-hence the much documented propaganda effort in Haiti. The other tactic is to deflect attention; Iran’s nuclear ambitions are the biggest threat to world peace, but Israel’s stockpile of nuclear weapons is somehow benign.
Underlying the importance of propaganda to Israel, a former ambassador wrote a piece in Haaretzurl today claiming that hasbara is both intelligent and necessary. That is only true to those so heavily ingrained in ideologies incompatible with logic, such as Zionism. They need propaganda to explain the enormous damage and suffering they cause, and to justify such a blatantly outdated and supremacist philosophy, both to themselves and to the rest of the world.
The former ambassador, David Admon, shamelessly pushes the need for a state propaganda ministry. He mentions that he suggested this in the 70’s to Menachem Begin who compared Admon’s idea to the Nazi propaganda of Goebbels. Nevertheless, Admon presses on; to him, everything Israelis do must feed the improvement of the Zionist state’s image. In response to accusations that Israel used the Haiti disaster for propaganda purposes he counters “What is the alternative? To remain indifferent?” In Admon’s mindest, the alternative to not using a foreign disaster as a PR event is to do nothing at all.
Admon’s methods are as laughable as his call for an official propaganda ministry is dangerous. His claim that Jerusalem was never a Palestinian capital comes from a Thomas Cook guidebook in 1900-he calls it an ‘indisputably reliable source’- which states that Jews in the city outnumber Palestinians (it doesn’t suit hasbara purposes to point out that those Jews were actually Palestinian). It gets worse:
“Before I set out on my mission in Hungary I bought more than 100 copies of the book “The Case for Israel,” written by American lawyer Alan Dershowitz. I gave it out there to people in the administration, academics and ambassadors. The well-reasoned, fact-based book gave them an opportunity to understand the Israeli side better and to admire the State of Israel.”
Fact based? Again, Zionist propaganda fantasies necessitate some strange beliefs. With their distortions, half-truths and outright lies, Dershowitz’s books are a joke, but they play a major role in hasbara efforts. The man himself has been especially vocal in his criticism of those who dare to criticize Israel since the Gaza massacre; he was consulted as part of Israel’s response to the Goldstone report and yesterday publicly attacked Judge Goldstone as an ‘evil, evil man’ and a ‘traitor to the Jewish [because in the parlance of hasbara, Israeli equals Jewish] people’.
However, Judge Goldstone isn’t is a traitor to honesty and human rights-which is precisely what David Admon and his ilk want to replace with lies and distortions, wrapped up in a shinier façade known as hasbara.
Related posts:
You are right Muhammad, launching unguided rockets at populations is a war crime.
Posted by war_crime | February 2, 2010, 3:43 amRight, one of the leading jurists of our generation, the youngest person to become a professor of law at Harvard, Dershowitz did all that by lying. Hasbara is explanation not propaganda.
Yes, the Europeans and Americans are so dumb and easily duped by Israel. They are going to sanction Iran when they should be sanctioning Israel. It seems you are the only intelligent person in the world! (expect of course for the deceiving Israelis)
There is a war over a simple idea: Should there be just one Jewish state in the world? Is that too many for you? I guess so. Too bad.
Posted by jjj | February 2, 2010, 5:03 amI didn't mention Dershowitz credentials as a jurist. I was talking of his pro-Israel books, which have been well debunked as laughably lacking in credibility. Not sure what's gotten you in a huff over all that.
I quite like how you avoided pretty much everything else I wrote and jumped to this nonsense about a war being about the existence of a Jewish state. Pure hasbara.
Posted by MohammadKF | February 2, 2010, 8:44 amHey…we all support as many jewish states as is needed to make zionists happy. But not by ethnic-cleansing of any native populations who have been living and tilling the lands for thousands of years.
There's a lot of empty space in Canada, Russia, America…. let them take those. Afterall it was the western world which caused these Jews so much grief.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 3, 2010, 2:32 pmethnic cleansing is wrong but sending people born in Israel/Palestine somewhere else would be just reversing the process, not correcting it. There's plenty of empty spaces for white Americans who displaced Indians too, but no one expects them to go anywhere. People can live in equality, without their current privileges, just like other post-colonial situations, in full recognition of Palestinians' right to return to their own homeland and live there.
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 6:20 pmRight, one of the leading jurists of our generation, the youngest person to become a professor of law at Harvard, Dershowitz did all that by lying.
This is a man who supports torture, ethnic cleansing, extra-judical assassination, collective punishment, and the destruction of entire villages to discourage terrorist attacks, and you call him one of our leading jurists? It is a measure of just how corrupt and degenerate our institutions of higher "learning" have become that a man with this much contempt for the rule of law and civilized conduct could become a professor of law at Harvard.
As for his "scholarship," that has been roundly debunked as fraudulent, plagiarized and racist in its presentation, and not just by Finkelestein:
http://www.counterpunch.com/menetrez02122008.html
Hasbara is explanation not propaganda.
Hasbara is bullshit. When someone tries to discuss Israel, and a hasbartchik tries to derail the conversation by talking about Darfur, that is not explanation, that is bullshit. Hasbara is a carefully prepared mix of canned arguments, sophistry, lies, non-sequiturs and naked assertions stirred with a generous base of wild and capricious accusations of anti-Semitism. It works well on those who tend not to think too deeply about things outside of their immediate concern and thus is convincing to the general public, but even the mildest examination of hasbara shows it for the dreck it is.
How many times can you use the same sophistry before before people start to see through it?
Posted by Sean2009 | February 4, 2010, 4:20 amThere is no reasoning with you, is there? You are dogmatic as an Ayatollah. Sources like Counterpunch are reliable but the NY times isn't. You know better than Harvard. Oh well.
Posted by jjj | February 4, 2010, 2:54 pmWhatever. No one can question Harvard, the newspapers never lie, and it is impossible to fact check a Counterpunch article by comparing it to Dershowitz's book or other sources. It is enough to say that an opinion differs from that of authorities to prove it wrong. This is a logical fallacy know as "argument from authority." Not to mention ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_author…
If this is what passes for "reason" in your mind, you can have it.
Posted by Sean2009 | February 4, 2010, 9:40 pmWhatever. No one can question Harvard, the newspapers never lie, and it is impossible to fact check a Counterpunch article by comparing it to Dershowitz's book or other sources. It is enough to say that an opinion differs from that of authorities to prove it wrong. This is a logical fallacy know as "argument from authority." Not to mention ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_author…
If this is what passes for "reason" in your mind, you can have it.
Posted by Sean2009 | February 4, 2010, 9:40 pmDershowitz' books about Israel have not been debunked, unless you of course believe Finkelstein is a better scholar than him. That is like saying the Walt and Mearsheimer's book has be debunked because Abe Foxman said so. Please show me an article in the "main stream" media that says the Dershowitz books on Israel are propaganda. I am sure there would be many people that would like to show up Dershowitz.
Dershowitz is a partisan, and writes as such. He is an Israel supporter. Israel has many flaws, but what it managed to achieve in 60 years and under constant hostility is quite remarkable, and especially remarkable given what its neighbors were able to accomplish in the same period.
Why does the argument from your side have to be that Israel is a complete and utter evil, when it is clear that this is not the case? It just makes you lose credibility. Why can't you acknowledge that in many areas Israel has been a success?
Regarding, the Jewish state. Maybe I misunderstood. Do you support there being one Jewish state in the world?
Posted by jjj | February 2, 2010, 3:09 pmDershowitz' books about Israel have not been debunked, unless you of course believe Finkelstein is a better scholar than him.
Finklestein is a better scholar than him-not because the mainstream media says so, but because his work is scholarly and cited, whilst Dershowitz makes shit up.
Israel is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population between 1947 and 1948, it is in continuous violation of international law with its denial of the right of return and continuous colonization of the West Bank and siege of Gaza, and it implements a system of apartheid. Go ahead and celebrate that if you want.
Posted by MohammadKF | February 2, 2010, 8:01 pmIsrael is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population between 1947 and 1948
And what are the Palestinians responsible for during 1947 and 1948? What did they do?
The Arabs had only themselves to blame for the upheaval: they’d started it.
continuous violation of international law with its denial of the right of return
There is no "right" to return to land that is now inside the state of Israel.
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 4:14 amThe French killed a million Arabs in the fifties and sixties, according to you the British and Americans killed a million Arabs in the last few years. The British subjugated and killed millions through famines. The Italians and Belgians killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Africans. The Chinese killed millions of their own. Let's not even start talking about the Germans and Russians.
The Israeli "crimes" pail in comparison. The Arabs rejected the 47 partition plan leading to the 1947-48 war. It was a war of survival and the only way to create a viable Jewish state and have some stability was to ethnically cleanse some Palestinians. I am not arguing here that the bad things Israel has done are justified by others doing worse. Two wrongs do not make a right, and indeed Israel has made mistakes and done bad things. All I am arguing is that just as all the countries above can be proud of their accomplishments despite of their history, so can Israel. In fact, Israel more so. Israel never resorted to the radical means other countries did.
Posted by jjj | February 2, 2010, 8:37 pmIt seems Jon Stewart also joined the Hasbara Brigade. Did you see the Daily Show tonight?
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 5:54 amNice post, Mohammad…but I don't think the point could be driven home any better than the comments you've received. It's quite incredible to see people acknowledging and then attempting to rationalize ethnic cleansing…especially while trying to argue that hasbara is "explanation not propaganda".
Posted by Dan | February 3, 2010, 8:15 amThose are exactly my thoughts. The irony is lost on them I suppose-they don't realize that they are just proving my point.
Posted by MohammadKF | February 3, 2010, 12:04 pmThe Arabs rejected the 47 partition plan leading to the 1947-48 war. It was a war of survival and the only way to create a viable Jewish state and have some stability was to ethnically cleanse some Palestinians"
Read Flapan's The Birth of Israel – Myths and realities. Ben-Gurion wrote in March that "it is now clear, without the slightest doubt, that were we to face the Palestinians alone, everything would be all right. They, the decisive majority of them, do not want to fight us, and all of them together are unable to stand up to us" (Flapan, 1987:73).
It isn't at all clear that the cleansing was necessitated by the war. Flapan also quotes agriculture minister Aharon Cizling form June 1948
""We are embarking on a course that will most greatly endanger any hope of peaceful alliance with forces who could be our allies in the Middle East …. Hundreds of thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs who will be evicted from Palestine, even if they are to blame, and left hanging in the midair, will grow to hate us. If you do things in the heat of the war, in the midst of the battle, it's one thing. But if after a month, you do it in cold blood, for political reason, in public, that is something altogether different. And I'm speaking now not only of moral considerations but also of political considerations." (1987:11).
Ben-Gurion's expulsion policies were criticized during the war repeatedly by the second largest party, Mapam, some soldiers refused to take part – the whole thing is much more complicated than "the Arabs attacked, we had no choice".
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 8:34 amshould be 1987:110
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 8:37 amOne of the biggest threats to Zionist revisionism is simple chronology; the ethnic cleansing began quite a while before the partition plan was proposed.
Posted by MohammadKF | February 3, 2010, 12:06 pmexplain more? do you mean kicking farmers off land bought by the JNF?
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 5:53 pmYes, attempts at ethnic cleansing began quite a while before the partition plan was proposed….
1920
Palestine riots or Nebi Musa riots
Jaffa
riots 1921
1929 Palestine riots
The Hebron Massacre
The 1929
Safed massacre
The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
The revolt did not achieve its goals, although it is "credited with signifying the birth of the Arab Palestinian identity."
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 8:03 pmIt wasn't the war that necessitated the expulsion of some Palestinians, it was the need to establish a stable state. It is as simple as that. It is one thing to have 20% hostile population in your state and another thing to have 50% of people hostile to the state. Read what Benny Morris says. He in fact says that Ben-Gurion did not do enough expulsion:
"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."
Anybody that denies that ethnic cleansing cannot be ever justified is just a radical. If my survival requires either killing someone or deporting him, then deporting is the better option.
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 3:45 pmBenny Morris is a strange character who has trouble admitting the implications of his own findings.
They don't have this page on Googlebooks, but on page 237 of The Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited he says
"On 9 April [1948], 80 IZL and 40 LHI troopers, for part of the battle supported by Hagannah machine-gunners from nearby Kiryat Shaul and two Palmach armored squads, attacked and took Deir Yassin, which, as we have seen, had signed a non-belligerency pact with its Jewish neighbors and repeatedly had barred entry to foreign irregulars".
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 6:08 pmif you really think that the only way of accomplishing Zionism was by ethnic cleansing of people just because they were Arabs, what does that say about Zionism?
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 6:11 pmNothing. I think the Arabs should have accepted the partition plan of 47. By rejecting it, they forced the hand of the Yishuv.
Furthermore, most worthwhile enterprises come at somebody's expense. That is unfortunate but true.
Was the French Revolution a bad thing because of the "terror" that followed? Was the founding of the US a bad thing because of what happened to Native Americans? What do you think?
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 7:12 pmas I responded to another comment yesterday, BenGurion estimated in March 1948 that mos Palestinian communities were willing to accept partition – probably because they felt they had no choice. Many signed non-belligerancy areements with Jewish communiite.s If is not at all clear that "the Arabs" rejected partition. The heigboring Arab states only made serious prearations to intervene after the ethnic cleansing was well underway, as a result of popular outcry.
What happened to native Americans was a full-fledged genocide, even worse that what happened to Palestinians. The first governors of Califirnia said openly "we need to exterminate the Indians" and then they went ahead and did that. If you're justifying that you're really not far off from justifying the Holocaust too, the comparison is not unreasonable.
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 7:39 pmWhat do you mean it is not clear the Arabs rejected partition??? The Arab League rejected the Partition Plan and appealed it at the Hague immediately. Furthermore, the Arabs after the war never offered a peace arrangement based on the Partition Plan because they never accepted a Jewish state.
It took the ethnic cleansing of some Palestinians to create a viable Jewish state. You asked me what this says about Zionism. I told you it says nothing because most good things come at the expense of others. The US came at the expense of the Native Americans. In your opinion, is the US a good or bad thing? What does it say about the US if it is based on "genocide" as you think? Why are you living in such a country? Why in fact are most Palestinians that contribute to this blog willing to tolerate and live in a country based on genocide while not being able to accept Israel that committed a much much smaller crime?
I am not justifying any crime. I repeat, I am not justifying any crime. I am asking why the double standards? Why can you accept a country based on genocide and you cannot accept a country based on a much lesser crime?
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 9:57 pmso,
1. Just because someone prefers to remain within the majority in one state isn't a justification for ethnically cleansing them.
2. the relevant political unit is the village, or town. There was no elected Palestinian leadership (since the British never allowed that to happen, unlike their official recognition of Jewish bodies), and there were no votes for the Arab League leadership.So to say people had to be cleansed because of a decision they had no part in doesn't make sense.
3. the cleansing took part piecemeal, village by village, town by town. How were the residents of Majdal, some of whom were members of the Histadrut labor union, such a big existential threat that they had to be cleansed in 1950 after the war had already ended? You're avoiding the question by talking about it in generalities.
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 10:56 pm1. No, the justification is the person's hostility to the Jewish State. Most Palestinians were hostile to it and would have destabilized it.
2. Get real. There was a popular leadership that reflected most of the views of the people. It may not have been elected, but it represented the people. Plus, are you saying then that it was justified to ethnically cleanse any village or town which fought against the Jews? Also, if you maintain this line of thought, no Israeli today was responsible for the removal of any Arab in 48. I did not elect Ben-Gurion and neither did you. I am not responsible therefore for what he did and it is not my responsibility to compensate anybody.
3. I said already that I did not know what the optimal or correct amount of expulsion is. Neither could the people doing it know. Perhaps Majdal was a mistake.
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 11:25 pmOn Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a plan to split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The as yet unnamed Jewish state — or, as they say in Arabic, “Zionist entity” — would be tiny and divided: nearly half its citizens would be Arabs. Still, the Jews danced the hora that day on the streets of Tel Aviv. Ben-Gurion, who’d spent 40 years working toward that end, didn’t join. “I could only think that they were all going to war,” he said.
Within hours, he was right.
Through the following May, when the British Mandate expired, civil war raged in Palestine. On paper and on the ground, the Palestinians had the edge: there were twice as many of them, they occupied the higher altitudes and they had friendly regimes next door. But isolated and outnumbered as they were, the Jews were far better organized, motivated, financed, equipped and trained than their adversaries, who were so fragmented — by geography and tradition and clan — that the term “Palestinian” was either unwarranted or at least premature. The war became a rout once the Jews took the offensive, and the Palestinian refugee crisis began (if “crisis” can be used to describe anything so chronic).
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 4:33 amIt wasn't the war that necessitated the expulsion of some Palestinians, it was the need to establish a stable state.
No, it was the need to establish a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews weren't the majority that necessitated the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. The early Zionist leaders had considered countries other than Palestine as the basis of a potential Jewish state, but in every case, the inexorable logic of Zionism would have proven the same: the original inhabitants would have to go to achieve a Jewish majority. They repeatedly emphasized the need for transfer and discussed ways it could be done, long before there was an Arab/Israeli conflict.
It is as simple as that. It is one thing to have 20% hostile population in your state and another thing to have 50% of people hostile to the state.
When you steal people's land and ethnically cleanse them, it has a tendency to make them hostile. I know, crazy talk, right?
Read what Benny Morris says. He in fact says that Ben-Gurion did not do enough expulsion:
"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."
That's certainly true, The creation and continued existence of a Jewish-dominated, Jewish-majority state required the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and continues to do so. It had nothing to do with the Palestinians, other than their refusal to give up their land and leave peacefully when commanded by their moral and racial superiors, and everything to do with Zionist ideology. Unfortunately for you and Benny Morris, the Zionists did not go far enough in their final solution to the Palestinian problem, so the inexorable logic of Zionism requires more ethnic cleansing, more land theft and more conflict in the future. Next time, perhaps you should just exterminate your victims, lest they become too hostile for continued sufferance of their existence.
Anybody that denies that ethnic cleansing cannot be ever justified is just a radical. If my survival requires either killing someone or deporting him, then deporting is the better option.
Anybody who thinks ethnic cleansing is ever justifiable is a psychopath. No one is denying there isn't a certain perverted criminal logic to Zionism, just as there is to any criminal enterprise. The mafia has its own logic that works for them, too. If you're going to steal someone's house, kicking them out makes a lot of sense, but it's safer just to kill them all. Ditto for stealing someone else's country.
The question is whether civilized people should go along with the rationalizations and conduct of psychopaths. If you're civilized, the answer should be obvious.
Posted by Sean2009 | February 4, 2010, 4:04 amThe Palestinians were expelled AFTER they rejected the partition. They were hostile even before the expulsions. The expulsions were not the reasons for hostility. They were the result of the hostility and the Arab unwillingness to share the land.
Again, what was the reason for the Hebron Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
I am sure you will justify that too.
Like it or not, the Jews accepted the partition plan. The Arabs rejected it and chose war. They paid the price. Since Benny Morris and millions of Israelis and millions of Zionists worldwide are not psychopaths, you are obviously wrong. In fact you do not make any sense. Of course ethnic cleansing is justified in certain cases just as murder is justified in certain cases. Let me give you a concrete example. If some people in a village nearby yours say to you: "We will carry a grudge forever. Either we or our children or their children will annihilate you. This is also the way we will educate our children." Then, you are justified in ethnically cleansing them for your own protection. That is a no brainer.
Posted by jjj | February 4, 2010, 4:53 amThe Palestinians were hostile because the Zionists entered into their country as a hostile force, supported by the British occupier, who were never coy about the fact their intent in being there was to seize control of the country and remove the original inhabitants to create a Jewish-dominated, Jewish-majority state in a land where Jews weren't the majority. Those items were on the Zionist agenda long before the Palestinians even had an inkling of what was going on. It was the same formula the Zionists intended to use in any of the candidate countries they had considered for creating a Jewish homeland. They purchased land for the exclusive use of Jews and drove out Palestinian farmers who had been on the land for centuries, prohibitting any Arab use of Jewish-owned land, even as labor. Jewish gangs attacked and murdered innocent Palestinians at protests against what was happening. If a group of Arabs bought out Manhattan and refused to allow Americans to live or work there and killed people who protested, what do you think the reaction would be?
http://chaimsimons.net/transfer.html
Again, what was the reason for the Hebron Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
I am sure you will justify that too.
What was the excuse for all these massacres of Palestinians? What was the excuse for Zionist collaboration with the British occupiers in suppressing the Arab Revolt of 1936, where over 5,000 Arabs were killed?
http://www.soundofegypt.com/Palestinian/adult/mas…
I like how you put the "too" in there as if I have previously justified any other massacre. Clever.
I know it is standard operational procedure for hasbaratchiks to lob false accusations of support for terrorist atrocities as a way of discrediting opponenets, as if to criticize Israel is to glorify terrorism. The savage irony is that there is probably no country that glorifies its terrorists like Israel does. There was another massacre in Hebron, at the Ibrahimi Mosque, where a Zionist fanatic murdered 29 Muslims and wounded 150 others while the Israeli army sat back and did nothing. He is celebrated with a commemorative shrine in his hometown. Then there were the terrorists you glorified by electing them prime minister, like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, or war criminals like Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak. Netanyahu recently praised the King David Hotel bombings, and the terrorists who carried out false-flag attacks against American interests in Egypt designed to lure America into a war against Egypt during the Lavon Affair were also praised as heroes.
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/isra…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middl…
part 1
Posted by Sean2009 | February 4, 2010, 9:19 pmWhat a skewed view of history! The Jews started coming to Palestine under the Ottoman empire, not only under the British. And why wouldn't the Jews cooperate with the Brits who were assigned the mandate of Palestine by the international community? Are the Jews responsible for that also? And the uprising against the Brits was because they allowed Jewish immigration. So why would the Jews not support the Brits? In order to make sure they could not immigrate to Palestine? And why isn't a Jew allowed to purchase land and do with it whatever he wants? And why would Americans care if Arabs bought Manhattan legally and did what they wanted with it? Why would they protest? The Americans would just build an alternative business center very quickly and leave the Arabs with worthless real estate.
You seem to know the intentions of every Zionist who ever came to Palestine. But just as there is much diversity among Jews now, there was then. And in fact before the 1929 Hebron Massacre there was a sizable part of the Jews who thought a one state solution was feasible. But given how the Arabs murdered and ethnically cleansed their neighbors of 400 years, this idea became unpopular. Instead, the massacre was the trigger of creating a Yishuv wide defense force, the new and improved Haganah. And by the way, please cite a credible source that shows an attack of a gang of Jews on Arab protesters pre-1929. In fact, it was the Arabs that killed innocent Jews just because they were Jews. But that is ok according to you because the intentions of the Zionists were evil.
Posted by jjj | February 5, 2010, 1:20 amWhat a skewed view of history! The Jews started coming to Palestine under the Ottoman empire, not only under the British. And why wouldn't the Jews cooperate with the Brits who were assigned the mandate of Palestine by the international community? Are the Jews responsible for that also? And the uprising against the Brits was because they allowed Jewish immigration.
I never claimed otherwise. Of course the Jews would support the Brits in their attempts to rob the Palestinians of their right to sovereignty and national independece: the Brits were their best chance of safeguarding Jewish aspirations to seize the whole country for their own exclusive use until such time as they were powerful enough to do so on their own. The Palestinians revolted in an attempt to gain their independence and assert their right to sovereignty. Sovereignty always resided with the Palestinians, not with the Mandatory power or the invaders who entered the country illegally unders its jurisdiction.
My view of history is based on the actual legal documents of the time and the freely available comments of Zionist leaders, rather than on thoroughly refuted Zionist propaganda, sophistry and talking points used to justify their crimes against humanity.
So why would the Jews not support the Brits? In order to make sure they could not immigrate to Palestine? And why isn't a Jew allowed to purchase land and do with it whatever he wants? And why would Americans care if Arabs bought Manhattan legally and did what they wanted with it? Why would they protest? The Americans would just build an alternative business center very quickly and leave the Arabs with worthless real estate.
Pure nonsense. It is illegal in the US to discriminate on the basis of race in employment or in selling or leasing land, and their would be a massive outcry if the Arabs ever tried to do such a thing in Manhattan. As a real world example, look what happened in Texas when a Muslim group legally purchased 11 acres to construct a mosque from a cattle farmer, and then asked the farmer to remove his cattle from the purchased land. The farmer freaked out thinking they were demanding he remove the cattle from his remaining land as well, and began hosting pig races to insult and provoke the Muslims. His neighbors joined in on this racist hatefest even offering him donations of $1,000 and more to keep up the "fight." The racist loons at Fox News and Jihad Watch began screaming about the evil Mooslims trying to rob this man of his right to use his land, when in fact the Muslim group stated cleary they not only had no problem with his raising cattle on his own land, they had no problem with the pig races, either. They just wanted the cattle off the land they had purchased.
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/01/texas-islamic-g…
You seem to know the intentions of every Zionist who ever came to Palestine.
I leave the race-based mind-reading to people like you, who claim to know that every Palestinian is hostile and therefore deserves to be ethnically cleansed. I don't claim to know the minds of Zionists other than by what they themselves say and profess to believe in. As I mentioned, the comments of Zionist leaders are freely available online, and it is clear from reading their thoughts and speeches they always intended to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, regarded all the "Land of Israel" as theirs by divine or natural right, had no intention of sharing power equally with Palestinians or anyone else who got in theway of their plans for an exclusivist Jewish supremacist state and had no intention of honoring any Palestinian or Arab claim to sovereignty while insisting the Arabs acknowledge theirs.
But just as there is much diversity among Jews now, there was then. And in fact before the 1929 Hebron Massacre there was a sizable part of the Jews who thought a one state solution was feasible.
You have a cite for this assertion? I specifically mentioned "Zionists", not all Jews.
In fact, it was the Arabs that killed innocent Jews just because they were Jews. But that is ok according to you because the intentions of the Zionists were evil.
Typical hasbara bullshit. Show me where I said it was okay for Arabs to murder Jews.
Posted by Sean2009 | February 5, 2010, 3:34 pmpart 2
So please, get your foot out of your mouth before you start accusing people like me who oppose all violence against civilians, not just Jews, of being terrorist supporters.
Like it or not, the Jews accepted the partition plan. The Arabs rejected it and chose war. They paid the price.
You act as if the Palestinians were under some kind of legal or moral obligation to accept the theft of their land. They were not. Resolution 181 was non-binding, and the Palestinian people were not under UN jurisdiction. No people should be obliged to part with its land to an invader under threat of force. I love the Ziologic here, though: either agree to our theft of your land, or we will steal more land and ethnically cleanse you, and you will be to blame!
This is the mindset of a rapist.
The Arabs did not choose war, the Zionists did, when one month before they declared their "independence" they had already begun the massacre and expulsions of Palestinians from Arab towns and cities that were supposed to be part of the Palestinian side of the partition. Why would the Palestinians agree to this? By the time the Arabs intervened in an effort to stop further ethnic cleansing, 250,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed. Yet Zionists maintain the fiction that they were somehow unfairly attacked.
Far from being unwilling to share the land, the Arabs had instead proposed a binational solution to the problem where Jews and Palestinians would be equal citizens under a single democratic state. The Zionists rejected this proposal because they wanted all the land for themselves and were unwilling to live as equals with the Arabs, who they preferred to remove from "their" country instead. Which is more consistent with our democratic, Western values, a racist supremacist state with dominance by one people achieved through ethnic cleansing and violence, or a binational, democratic state where all ethncities and religions are equal under the law, achieved through peaceful negotiation?
The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Histo…
Since Benny Morris and millions of Israelis and millions of Zionists worldwide are not psychopaths, you are obviously wrong.
Benny Morris is a psychopath, as is clear from his writing. If 50 million Nazis can be criminally mistaken, so can millions of Zionists.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-…
Posted by Sean2009 | February 4, 2010, 9:20 pmpart 2
So please, get your foot out of your mouth before you start accusing people like me who oppose all violence against civilians, not just Jews, of being terrorist supporters.
Like it or not, the Jews accepted the partition plan. The Arabs rejected it and chose war. They paid the price.
You act as if the Palestinians were under some kind of legal or moral obligation to accept the theft of their land. They were not. Resolution 181 was non-binding, and the Palestinian people were not under UN jurisdiction. No people should be obliged to part with its land to an invader under threat of force. I love the Ziologic here, though: either agree to our theft of your land, or we will steal more land and ethnically cleanse you, and you will be to blame!
This is the mindset of a rapist.
The Arabs did not choose war, the Zionists did, when one month before they declared their "independence" they had already begun the massacre and expulsions of Palestinians from Arab towns and cities that were supposed to be part of the Palestinian side of the partition. Why would the Palestinians agree to this? By the time the Arabs intervened in an effort to stop further ethnic cleansing, 250,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed. Yet Zionists maintain the fiction that they were somehow unfairly attacked.
Far from being unwilling to share the land, the Arabs had instead proposed a binational solution to the problem where Jews and Palestinians would be equal citizens under a single democratic state. The Zionists rejected this proposal because they wanted all the land for themselves and were unwilling to live as equals with the Arabs, who they preferred to remove from "their" country instead. Which is more consistent with our democratic, Western values, a racist supremacist state with dominance by one people achieved through ethnic cleansing and violence, or a binational, democratic state where all ethncities and religions are equal under the law, achieved through peaceful negotiation?
The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Histo…
Since Benny Morris and millions of Israelis and millions of Zionists worldwide are not psychopaths, you are obviously wrong.
Benny Morris is a psychopath, as is clear from his writing. If 50 million Nazis can be criminally mistaken, so can millions of Zionists.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-…
Posted by Sean2009 | February 4, 2010, 9:20 pmAgain, you do no understand what you are talking about. The UN partition resolution did not take 1 square inch from any Arab. All it did was determine in which country that land would be. But ALL Arab owned land would remain Arab owned after the partition. Yet, the Arabs refused this because they could not contemplate living in a state with a slight Jewish majority. An Arab ruled by Jews? No, the racist Arabs could not conceive of that possibility.
The Arabs had no moral or legal obligation to accept anything. The partition was a compromise reached by the international community. A way to avert war. In fact, I am sure they regret not accepting it given what has happened over the last 60 years. The Arabs rejected this compromise because they were sure they could throw the Jews into the sea. It is completely the Arab's fault that they miscalculated and took stupid chances. The Arabs portrayed the mentality of a bully that doesn't realize how weak he is. For acting this foolish, you pay a price.
It is hilarious how you quote an offer for a democratic state given by a league of monarchies and dictatorships. Do you not see how hollow their proposal was and how late in the game it was? Especially given the historical fact that the Arab neighbors of Palestine planned to gobble it up as in fact they did parts. Why didn't the Egyptians and Jordanians grant independence to the West Bank and Gaza in 48?
Being mistaken is one thing, being a psychopath is another. It seems that you have problems recognizing perfectly normal people. Morris is no more a psychopath then millions of other Zionists. You seem to think that the majority of people are fools but only you see the truth. Some humility would do you good.
Posted by jjj | February 5, 2010, 1:39 amAt the time of partition, less than 6 percent of Mandatory Palestine was owned by Jews, but partition gave them over 60 percent of the land. The Arabs very clearly indicated their willingeness to live with the Jews as equals in a single binational state, just not as inferiors in a Jewish-dominated state carved arbitrarily out of land the Palestinains had an exclusive legal and moral right to. In fact, Zionist leaders clearly indicated they did not consider the slight majority that partition gave them to be adequate for the purposes of maintaining Jewish supremacy, and they had every intention of seizing more land and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.
Ben-Gurion:
[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403)
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority …. There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)
". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zi…
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine…
The Arabs had no moral or legal obligation to accept anything. The partition was a compromise reached by the international community. A way to avert war. In fact, I am sure they regret not accepting it given what has happened over the last 60 years. The Arabs rejected this compromise because they were sure they could throw the Jews into the sea. It is completely the Arab's fault that they miscalculated and took stupid chances. The Arabs portrayed the mentality of a bully that doesn't realize how weak he is. For acting this foolish, you pay a price.
This was not a compromise, but an outright theft of Palestinian land and denial of Palestinian sovereignty which the UN had no authority to broker under the terms of its own charter. The idea that the Arabs invaded to "push the Jews into the Sea" is a staple of Zionist hasbara. It is also a lie. Show me where any Arab leader ever stated that their intent was to "push the Jews into the sea." They intervened with a pathetically small, underequipped force that could not have possibly been intended as an "invasion" force, as it lacked the arms and manpower to undertake such an ambitious military enterprise. It was simply a poorly planned and half-hearted attempt to prevent the Zionists from pushing the Palestinians into the sea…and into the desert. That it failed does not legitimize Ziionist aggression or bogus claims of victimhood.
It is hilarious how you quote an offer for a democratic state given by a league of monarchies and dictatorships. Do you not see how hollow their proposal was and how late in the game it was?
Much like the Partition plan was pushed by the democratic Soviet Union which strong-armed many countries into accepting it? Any such deal would have been binding on the Arabs, monarchies or not.
http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_ungromyko2….
Especially given the historical fact that the Arab neighbors of Palestine planned to gobble it up as in fact they did parts. Why didn't the Egyptians and Jordanians grant independence to the West Bank and Gaza in 48?
Jordan's annexation of the West bank was at the invitation of the Palestinians themselves, was legal under international law, and was set up as a trusteeship that by design did not in any way prejudice the future national aspirations of the Palestinian people. You might note that three Arab countries, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia, opposed the annexation despite its legal character, and recommended "expulsion" of the Jordanians. Those nasty anti-Arabists, they wanted to push the Jordanians into the sea!
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9614F8FC82DCA…
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace…
Posted by Sean2009 | February 5, 2010, 3:37 pmAt the time of partition, less than 6 percent of Mandatory Palestine was owned by Jews
And at the end of WWII the Nazis owned all of Germany. What's your point?
palestineremembered.com is a politically motivated site, offering "interpretations" of history.
From BBC News…
UN Partition Plan
The United Nations General Assembly decided in 1947 on the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem to be an internationalised city.
Jewish representatives in Palestine accepted the plan tactically because it implied international recognition for their aims. Some Jewish leaders, such as David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister, opposed the plan because their ambition was a Jewish state on the entire territory of Mandate Palestine.
The Palestinians and Arabs felt that it was a deep injustice to ignore the rights of the majority of the population of Palestine. The Arab League and Palestinian institutions rejected the partition plan, and formed volunteer armies that infiltrated into Palestine beginning in December of 1947.
By the way Sean, do you know why the one-state idea was abandoned in favor of the partition plan?
Posted by Freedumb | February 5, 2010, 7:29 pmIn another book of essays he describes how the Arab population of AlMajdal (now Ashkelon) was deported in 1950 after the cease fire – after the war had ended. The security establishment at the time presented every person of Arab descent as a security threat even if they took actual steps to prevent attacks on Jewish communities. You can't excuse that all as a survival issue, and plenty of Jewish Israelis at the time saw through this and tried to stop it (e.g. the mayor of Tel Aviv, who tried to prevent the LHI from putting a seige on the village of Sheikh Muwwanis, or Yitzhak Rabin's soldiers who protested having to shoot towards civilians in Lydda and Ramle in order to drive them out. This formula of "we had no choice" doesn't hold water.
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 6:08 pmYou ignore the simple fact that a large Jewish majority was needed for a stable state. Israel would not have survived with a large hostile population. I don't know exactly what is the "right" percent, but nobody could know. Expulsion was necessary. To what degree, is a question that is impossible to answer.
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 7:25 pmYou're continuing to shamelessly justify ethnic cleansing.
Posted by MohammadKF | February 3, 2010, 9:30 pmisn't this better, in a way, than denying it happened? at least things are out in the open.
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 10:58 pmexcellent post
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 11:04 pmTransfer — or expulsion or ethnic cleansing — was never an explicit part of the Zionist program, even among its more extreme elements.
The first Arabs who left their homes did so on their own, expecting to return once the Jews lost or the fighting stopped.
Apocalyptic Arab broadcasts induced further flight and depicted as traitors those who chose to stay behind.
But once the Palestinian exodus began, Jewish leaders, struck by their good fortune, first encouraged it, then coerced it, then sought to make it stick.
After all, the country needed room for Hitler’s victims, as well as for those Jews fleeing Arab countries. And it also had to protect itself against insurrectionists in its midst.
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 4:27 amYou're continuing to shamelessly justify terrorism.
Posted by splat | February 10, 2010, 2:11 amlink?
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 6:13 pmhttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-2-…
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 7:15 pmpretty hateful clips.
The first one, though, was distorted by Memri. The mouse says "the Jews will shoot us", not "we will annihilate the Jews". Hateful, but not genocidal.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007…
Posted by tompe | February 4, 2010, 9:35 am4. "What does it say about the US if it is based on "genocide" as you think? Why are you living in such a country?"
I'm not Palestinian, but the obvious answer to your question is that Palestinians have no problem living in Israel, the problem is the opposite – Israel wants to keep them out. Native Americans don't politely get up and leave the US because of what happened to them, so why do expect Palestinians to quietly accept the results?
Posted by tompe | February 3, 2010, 10:56 pmYou didn't answer my questions:
It took the ethnic cleansing of some Palestinians to create a viable Jewish state. You asked me what this says about Zionism. I told you it says nothing because most good things come at the expense of others. The US came at the expense of the Native Americans. In your opinion, is the US a good or bad thing? What does it say about the US if it is based on "genocide" as you think? Why are you living in such a country? Why in fact are most Palestinians that contribute to this blog willing to tolerate and live in a country based on genocide while not being able to accept Israel that committed a much much smaller crime?
I am not justifying any crime. I repeat, I am not justifying any crime. I am asking why the double standards? Why can you accept a country based on genocide and you cannot accept a country based on a much lesser crime?
I am asking YOU, why do YOU accept the US even though it is based on genocide and you do not accept Israel which is based on a much lesser crime? I am asking YOU, why do YOU not have a problem living in the US? I am asking, why the double standards?
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 11:29 pmI am not asking the Palestinians to accept the results, but what they are demanding is the same as Israel demanding that the Germans revive the Jews they killed before peace could be had between the nations. That would be asking for the impossible and that is what the Palestinians are asking. I do not accept that most of the family was killed by the Germans, but I don't vow to fight Germans until my family is revived.
Based on your reasoning, It seems Israel would have been better off if it had killed all the Palestinians instead of removing them from their land. Then, it would be easier to make peace because there would not be the issue of the RoR. Don't you see how ridiculous this is? Because Israel did not kill the Palestinians, it is pestered by unreasonable demands.
Posted by jjj | February 3, 2010, 11:38 pmJJJ,
I resptectfully disagree with your assesment about the 1947 UN pertition plan.
Yes the Palestinian rightfully rejected the plan. But, why should they have accepted?
Jews were less than 2% of the populatin and owned less than 6% of the land of Plaestine.
The UN have no right to take one land and divide up among people who never lived there.
I take it you remember the story in the King Salomon who made a false claim to some one els's child.
When king Salomon said, he will divide the baby in half, the real mohter said, NO! let her have him instead. With his wisdom, he knew then who the real mother is.
Posted by Mahmoud El-Yousseph | February 4, 2010, 3:57 amAlso the claim Palestinians were hotile to Jews in 47/48 . That is a total fabrication.
In reality Jews found a safe haven in Palesitine when they were prococuted in Europe.
Finally, for Israel to have a real and lasting peace, all what Israel have to do is , to return what its stole and took by force to its orginal owner- the Palestinians. Then there will be peace in the Middle East.
As long as Palestine is occupied, resistance is justified, and Israel will never have peace.
Palestinians are like the rest of us, desere to live free and independent of brutal foreign military occupation that treat them like gaged animals, restricts their movements, kill their leaders, uproot thier trees , terrorize them day and nigths through midnights raids, humiliate them at check points and improsion their men, women, and children with no charges indefinately.
You have to be deaf, blind, and mute not see that.
Thanks for your time.
Posted by Mahmoud El-Yousseph | February 4, 2010, 3:58 amThe history pre 48 proves you wrong. The Palestinians used violence against the Jews often. The most famous case was the Hebron massacre of 1929:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
The Jews of Hebron were living there for 400 years and the Muslims of Hebron, based on false rumors, slaughtered and ethnically cleansed them. Do you call that being safe and protected?
The only reason Jews were safer in Palestine than in Europe is because they organized for self defense in Israel.
What exactly do you want back for peace? The West Bank and Gaza, or all of Israel? Can you be specific?
Posted by jjj | February 4, 2010, 4:43 amAlso the claim Palestinians were hotile to Jews in 47/48 . That is a total fabrication.
Beginning of the Civil War (30 November 1947 – 1 April 1948)
In the aftermath of the adoption of the United Nations' partition plan, the manifestations of joy of the Jewish community were counterbalanced by protests by Arabs throughout the country and after the 1 December, the Arab Higher Committee enacted a general strike that lasted three days.
A 'wind of violence' rapidly took hold of the country, foreboding civil war between the two communities.
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 7:23 pmMahmoud El-Yousseph,
Unlike in Solomon's fable, the Palestinians did not say to the Jews, ok you can have the land. They and the Arabs fought Israel for it. So maybe I am missing something.
Posted by jjj | February 4, 2010, 4:37 amAs for the UN resolution, you cannot have it both ways.
Why do YOU get to decide which UN resolutions are fair and need to be followed and not Israel?
I reject that. If you get to say that the UN resolution was unfair and shouldn't be followed, Israel also has the right to do that with UN resolutions. So please do not complain if that is the case.
Posted by jjj | February 4, 2010, 4:58 amThat is actually a great point.
Posted by Admiral Akbar | February 8, 2010, 10:41 pmJJJ wrote:
<Text Quote >
Of course ethnic cleansing is justified in certain cases just as murder is justified in certain cases.
This is a faulty logic. Fellowing your thinking, one could also argue that Hitler and the Nazis were right and justified for targeting Jews. You don't seem consistent to me. One one hand you justify Israeli war crimes and attrocities against Palestinians, but then you argue about Israel right for survival. What a joke. Israel is the fifth strongest country in the world with nuclear , chemical and biological weapon.
Are you telling me the absolute rockets Hamas has would threaten Israel's existence? get real "triple J" !
They hardly ever hit its intended target!
Posted by Mahmoud El-Youssleph | February 4, 2010, 5:12 amHow can you argue that Hitler and the Nazis were justified in targeting Jews? Please make the argument. Every case stands on its own merits and the Nazi case is different than the Palestinian case.
You are mixing up so many things, and have not yet answered any of my questions or responded to the inaccuracies of your view.
The Hamas rockets brought to an halt the economy of the areas targeted. If they could do that to Tel-Aviv, that would be an economic disaster. Do you think NY would thrive if everyday 5 Qassams landed somewhere in Manhattan? NY would become a ghost town quickly.
Posted by jjj | February 4, 2010, 2:59 pmthe Nazi case is different than the Palestinian case
Nazis ‘shipped arms to Palestinians’
British National Archives unveil presence of Nazi S.S. agents in Mandatory Palestine, working closely with Palestinian leaders
Nazis planned Palestine subversion
Posted by nazi | February 5, 2010, 4:22 amWhy should the Nazi atrocities not be seen in the same light as Zionist atrocities? Is it because Israel is more successful as a state then Germany was under Hitler? Bullshit!
You must understand that Nazis had just as much a 'morally justifiable cause' as the Zionists had for creating the Naqba. Germans who were defeated in WW1 were unjustly forced to compensate the Allied forces in the humiliating treaty of Versailles which, not only crippled their economy but threatened to render their state like the one found in Gaza. A non-state!
TO RESURRECT AND UNIFY THE NEW GERMAN IDENTITY, the Nazi party had to create a mythically strong yet physically weak opponent (the opponent which was the ultimate cause of their defeat in WW1) to direct their vengeance against. And this they found in the punching bag of Europe ~ the Jews.
Now, knowing all this, can you justify the Holocaust?
The Zionists too, in order to get a viable functioning state had to resort either to genocide or at the least, ethnic cleansing. No state can function if more then half its population, Muslims and Jews, are hostile to Zionists. And if the state is to become a democracy on the model of Western democracies, Israel would ultimately remain an Arab state, ruled by Arab politicians. So ethnic cleansing was imperative to creating a Jewish state. Period.
Now, knowing all this, can you justify the Naqba?
If you can, then this is where we draw our intellectual lines. Some, intellectual as they may seem to themselves, have no qualms in admitting their hypocrisy;
while honest people like myself condemn all atrocities, be them the Holocaust or the Naqba.
++~ Funny how the spell check here recognize Holocaust as a word but the word Naqba has a red underline beneath it ~++
Funny…?
Posted by OooKhalid | February 5, 2010, 6:06 amLet me explain to you why you are totally wrong.
Let's assume that the German state was in jeopardy and needed to forge an identity at the expense of a minority (which in itself is arguable). They certainly did not need to murder this minority to get the effect. In fact, the Final Solution was kept secret. The fact that the Jews were being murdered in the millions was not even known to most Germans. So the murder of the Jews, had no effect on the psychology of the German population. Therefore it was a totally unneeded evil and the Holocaust cannot be justified based on this approach.
Furthermore, to reach the desired psychological effect, there was no need to send the Jews to concentration camps. They could have been treated as shit in their own communities thus helping the German perception of superiority and the fact that there is a common enemy. So not only was the murder of the Jews not justified, neither was sending them to concentration camps based on the need you are supposing.
In addition, the Jews were a minority in Germany. The Palestinians were a MAJORITY in Palestine and in the context of the Arab world, the Jews were a very small minority. So this not a case of a Jewish majority exploiting a minority, but of a Jewish minority fighting for its rights against a huge Arab majority.
And, the Jews accepted an international compromise in order to try as they may to avert war. The war was forced on them by the Arabs that rejected the international compromise, leaving the Jews with no option but war and the creation of a stable state without the consent of the Palestinians. This could not be done without expulsions.
To summarize, the murder of the Jews by the Nazis was pure evil that served no need of the German state. The expulsions of the Palestinians were necessary in order to create a stable Jewish state and ensure the survival of the Jewish minority in Palestine.
Posted by jjj | February 5, 2010, 2:56 pmthe murder of the Jews by the Nazis was pure evil that served no need of the German state
Basically, the Jews were targeted because they were not German, they were not Germanic or Scandinavian, and they were also used as scapegoats for the crippling outcome of WWI.
The expulsions of the Palestinians were necessary in order to create a stable Jewish state
Actually, the Palestinians were dangerous to Israel, they attacked and intended to destroy Israel. Before the outbreak of hostilities, there was no need for expulsions.
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 7:42 pmjjj read this
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 7:43 pmThanks illuminated, I am familiar with the history having read the books by Benny Morris, but a refresher is always good.
Posted by jjj | February 5, 2010, 9:28 pmYou have provided an interesting point, however a little researching would immediately underline the flaw in your assumptions.
Lets just assume the German public had no desire on instituting a pogrom on the native Jews (which is gullible in itself as the Germans voted the Nazi party overwhelmingly due to the Nazi's anti-Semitic slant). But Hitler was forced to resort to extreme measure to keep his party members, who were indoctrinated in an ideology of hate and murder, satisfied; and so ensure his own leadership within the party and the Third Reich.
Before the war, the Nazis had thought of mass resettlements of the German (and subsequently the European) Jewry to areas outside Europe. Diplomatic efforts were undertaken to negotiate arrangements with the colonial powers to resettle Jews to British Palestine, French Madagascar, Australia, etc..
However this wasn't gruesome enough for the German populace or the party members, and Hitler was forced to take other measures which grew more gruesome with time. When concentration camps were not enough to satisfy their blood lust, Jews were sent to the ghettos then finally the gas chambers. Treating Jews like shit was not enough for the German people to satisfy their vengeance against the Jews, who they blamed for their loss and humiliation in WW1.
Now can you justify the Holocaust as a necessary measure by Hitler to keep his power base intact?
Can you justify Naqba as a necessary measure by Zionists to keep their power base intact?
A striking similarity between the Nazis and Zionists is their blind adherence to mythical connotations, which they use to justify the atrocities their hands commit.
#Nazis believed (in addition to other crazy beliefs), the Aryan race to be superior to all other races in terms of its standing in the evolutionary ladder, and so justified the extermination of other lesser races to fulfill the Darwinian process of natural selection.
#Zionists believed ( in addition to other crazy beliefs), that the Jewish people are the 'chosen people of God', and so have a superior right above the natives to settle in the land of 'milk and honey', even if it means the forced expulsion of the natives from their homes and in to the wilderness of the deserts; to die if possible.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 6, 2010, 7:04 amYour whole assertion falls down immediately as a house of cards since the Final Solution, the murdering of the Jews was kept secret. The Nazi leadership wanted very few people to know this. Therefore there was no psychological need of any kind to kill the Jews.
But you are also making assumptions based on nothing. How do you know that relocation of Jews was not gruesome enough for the Germans? Where is your proof? You need to show that Hitler had to send Jews to concentration camps in order for Germany to survive. Please show ONE historian that says that. That is just an assumption that has no backing. It doesn't even make sense. Therefore the Holocaust, unlike the expulsion of Palestinians is unjustified.
You are also completely mistaken about Zionism. It was mostly a secular movement at the time and therefore the Jews certainly did not see themselves chosen in any way. The Jews accepted the UN resolution plan. It is the ultimate proof that they were willing to share the land. It was the Arabs that in their racist hatred could not conceive a Jewish state and rejected it. And now they are paying the price. I call that justice.
Posted by jjj | February 6, 2010, 4:50 pm1# The Final Solution was kept secret from the mainstream media, because the Nazis feared the backlash it might create against Germany. But it is undeniable that the people of Germany were not naive enough to believe anything nice happening to the Jews. However the main point is not the German populace's sentiments but the sentiments within the party. Nazi ideology was a mixture of fascism and extreme Antisemitism. Every party member was indoctrinated into an ideology of hate against Jews, and this was the double edged sword Hitler had to deal with. On the one side this was the platform which catapulted the Nazis to power and at the same time the sentiment Hitler had to maintain in order to keep his position in the party.
So if i use your philosophy of morality, the Holocaust wasn't a crime because it was a necessary evil for Hitler to keep his position in the party and the Third Reich.
Just as the Naqba wasn't a crime because it was a necessary to keep the Zionists in power.
2# You are correct when you say that it was a secular movement, however the Zionists used this myth in order to garner support amongst the Jews and for them to emigrate into the Holy Lands.
'The chosen people' theory is no more truthful then the 'Aryan supremacy' theory, but both Zionist and Nazis used these myths to consolidate their power, and to a large degree believed in it themselves.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 7, 2010, 3:03 pm"So if i use your philosophy of morality, the Holocaust wasn't a crime, because it was a necessity in order for Hitler to keep his position in the party and the Third Reich.
Just as the Naqba wasn't a crime because it was a necessary to keep the Zionists in power.
"
I dont think jjj meant that. It is not the question of Hitler keeping his position in the party. Can you give any evidence in support of the fact that the extermination of the Jews was necessary for the survival of the German state and German people?
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 7, 2010, 6:11 pmWhat jjj meant was that the end justifies the means! All i tried to show him was that if that was the case then all mass murderers and rapists and pariahs of our society would be given a red carpet reception.
I was just using Hitler as an example, as the Holocaust seems to be an atrocity which jjj is emotionally attached to.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 8, 2010, 10:43 amthere are two points:
1) The jews were minority in Germany whereas the arabs were majority in palestine,
2) There is no proof that the jews were a threat to the existence of German state. In palestine, however, there was the hebron massacre, which clearly shows that there was a hostility by the arabs against the Jews and the state of israel.
OooKhalid, If you are on the winning side, nobody cares if you are a mass murderer, right? It is unfortunate but true. Many "pariahs" of the history were mass murderers and rapists, who are worshipped by masses today, considered among the greatest people ever lived. You wont like if I mention those names, so I wont. Also, that doesnt serve to the point of this debate.
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 8, 2010, 2:15 pmOf course I didn't mean that the end justifies the means. You are putting words in my mouth. I meant that every act should be judged by itself. If you can show me that in order to survive the German people had to murder Jews, then the holocaust would be justified, but it isn't. The goal of Hitler or a few people staying in power, certainly does not justify genocide. In Palestine, if the expulsions would have been just politically motivated and not necessary for the survival of the Jews, they would not be justified either.
But the expulsions were required for the survival of the Jews and therefore justified. If for example the Jews would have killed the Palestinians instead of expelling them, that would NOT be justified because expelling would have been enough.
So I judge every act on its own and certainly do not accept that the end justifies the means.
Posted by jjj | February 8, 2010, 3:00 pmhaha! ur confusing me….
You claim you don't accept that the end justifies the means.
However you persistently claim that Kicking out a million people from their homes isn't a crime because it had a 'morally just cause'. But Murdering a million people is, because it seemingly doesn't have a 'moral enough cause'; just contradicts you claim.
So lets say, a few homeless people from your country comes to your home and kicks you out, for you to sleep on the streets; and it wouldn't be a crime because it was necessary for their 'survival'??? And you wouldn't press charges against them? And you would compromise with them for 'peace'; ie. you sleep on the streets and they sleep in you home. Will you do that??
You might. But i hell will not!!
And anyway don't get any ideas that i was comparing the Zionists to homeless people. Because i wasn't! Them Zionists had their own homes in Eastern Europe. They should never have left them to claim someone else's.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 9, 2010, 7:17 pmYou are confused. If someone intends to kill you and you can stop him just by injuring him, then it is a crime to kill him. In the case of Israel it would have been a crime to kill the Palestinians instead of expelling them because expelling ensured the survival of Israel and the Jews. Therefore, killing would serve no additional purpose and would be a crime. Killing is not justified because it is an overkill (pun intended). Expulsions are justified because they are the least harmful thing that could be done to ensure the survival of the Jews and Israel.
In Israel there are shelters for homeless people, so the homeless people would not be justified in kicking me out of my home. Furthermore, the weather is such, that one can survive sleeping outside (usually). Plus, the homeless person would not be justified in kicking me out because I am no threat to him, unlike the Arabs who were a huge threat to the Jews.
The difference between us is this. If my brother tried to kill someone and that person in defending himself killed my brother, I would not have issue with that person. He killed my brother, but he was justified in doing so. You on the other hand would seek revenge even though it was your brother's fault that he died. You do not understand the concept of self defense.
The Jews were acting in self defense. The Arabs rejected the partition and chose war. The Jews had no choice but to act as they did. Your problem is that you cannot see that the Arabs are responsible for what happened to them.
Posted by jjj | February 9, 2010, 9:59 pmAnd by the way, it was really stupid of the Jews to leave their homes in Eastern Europe. If they would have stayed they would be smoke climbing a concentration camp chimney. That is a great career with constant upward advancement. And those that survived had the privilege of living under Communist rule for decades. You should not be blaming the Jews, but the countries of the world that would not accept the Jewish immigration. Most Jews would have preferred to go to Europe, US, Australia etc instead of having to fight a war of survival against the Arabs. But the Jews had no choice.
Posted by jjj | February 9, 2010, 10:09 pmEthic-cleansing can never be a defensive strategy. It was and always has been an offensive stratagem by a superior armed force on innocent civilians to artificially alter the demographics of an area.
Your line of logic is the same as Hitler's, when he said that the Jews were a threat to the German Nation, to justify the Holocaust. However neither Hitler nor the Zionists, if taken to a court of law (not in Israel), will be able to prove that every one of the Jews who were killed and every one of the Arabs who were expelled, were a threat to Germany and Jewish people respectively.
And no person deserves to die or be expelled from their homes unjustly. "For tumult and oppression is worst then slaughter"(Ouran 1:191). However you will continue to condemn one atrocity while shamelessly justifying another. Because unlike you, i have a fixed stand on morality. The end doesn't justify the means!
God willing, Justice will prevail !
//… the Arabs are responsible for what happened to them. //
Definitely, I agree with you; They were responsible for for losing the war and facilitating the largest humanitarian crisis of the modern world.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 10, 2010, 8:37 amYou are just using double standards because you do not like the rational conclusion. Yes, you morality is fixed, but in favor of the Palestinians.
If you can kill someone in self defense of course you can expel someone in self defense. Yet, you are arguing against this no brainer.
Yes, justice will prevail one day. The Palestinians will accept some monetary compensation and get on with their lives.
Posted by jjj | February 10, 2010, 4:12 pm//… the Arabs are responsible for what happened to them. //
Definitely, I agree with you; They were responsible for for losing the war and facilitating the largest humanitarian crisis of the modern world.
//If they would have stayed they would be smoke climbing a concentration camp chimney.//
Majority of immigration was before the Nazi pogrom and after the Nazi defeat. So fear of chimney soot was not their reason for immigration. They came in, brainwashed by Zionists, with invasion in their minds, and to uproot a native population from their lands.
Really my heart goes out to these Jewish people. For they had to strive through so many European atrocities like Inquisition and Holocaust. They should really have a nation to ensure their freedom and their civilization. They should really have a nation, but not at the expense of MY land
Posted by OooKhalid | February 10, 2010, 8:47 amWell, if you agree the Arabs were responsible, you should ask them for justice, not the Israelis.
The immigration before and after WWII was much below what it should have been because world powers did not want to accept Jews. Many Jews wanted out but had nowhere to go. The immigration after the war was relatively small because most of the Jews were murdered! Otherwise the immigration would have been much bigger.
You admit that the Jews deserve a country, and I sincerely appreciate that. Many Arabs just argue that Judaism is a religion and not a nation. So again, thanks for respecting how we self identify ourselves.
I think though that your strategy should be different. Instead of fighting us to the death for Israel/Palestine, find us a good alternative. My first choice is Provence, second choice is Bavaria and third choice the Trieste area. Maybe the Arabs can buy these for us? I admit that there are some Jews more attached to the specific land of Israel than I am. But at least this will be a constructive effort and will get your struggle more support than it has now.
Posted by jjj | February 10, 2010, 4:26 pm"….My first choice is Provence, second choice is Bavaria and third choice the Trieste area. Maybe the Arabs can buy these for us?"
jjj, even if this is possible, why the arabs shall buy these lands for Jews?
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 10, 2010, 5:32 pmI was joking. Of course this is not realistic, and that is my point. No European country is going to give the Jews land to create a Jewish state. We cannot rewind history. We have to make do with the current situation.
Posted by jjj | February 11, 2010, 2:23 amAnd no Arab will give you their land to create a state! Period.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 11, 2010, 3:54 amBut many Arabs have already done so. In fact, the Arab League peace plan acknowledges a Jewish state as does the Fatah which represents a nice portion of the Palestinians. And of course there are Egypt and Jordan. So what is the basis of your bombastic declarations?
Posted by jjj | February 11, 2010, 6:23 amThese despots don't represent the aspirations of the people. You ask any one, and he will tell you Jerusalem will once again be ours.
We waited 100 years until we drove out the Crusader invaders. And if needed, we'll wait 200 years till we finally drive out the Zionist invader., until injustice is no more and peace can prevail.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 11, 2010, 11:34 amNo, the almost 50% of Palestinians that voted for Fatah do not represent the Palestinians, but you do.
This all or nothing mentality is very costly for the Palestinians and you don't seem to learn.
Posted by jjj | February 11, 2010, 3:05 pmSo lets say, a few homeless people from your country comes to your home and kicks you out, for you to sleep on the streets
The Zionists did not just show up in Palestine and start kicking out Palestinians. First of all, before Israel was ever created the Palestinians would attack the Jews.
1920 Palestine riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_o… or Nebi Musa riots
Jaffa riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_o… 1921
1929 Palestine riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
The Hebron Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
The 1929 Safed massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Safed_massacre
The 1936 – 1939 Arab revolt in Palestine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936-1939_Arab_revol…
Then when Israel WAS created they tried to destroy it, and have engaged in violence ever since.
So a more accurate analogy would be…. So lets say, a few people move into your neighborhood that are different from you. You don't like the people, so you attack them, but they defeat you. Then you try to destroy their homes, but again they defeat you, and this time they drive you away from them.
Posted by Admiral_Akbar | February 10, 2010, 1:34 amWOW ! so many massacres??!!
But surely it wasn't as bad as the Holocaust. Darn, if Israel is to get land in proportion to massacres against them, they could have a nation as big as Canada right in Europe.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 10, 2010, 9:35 amThe point is that the Arabs resented Jewish immigration and resorted to violence to stop it. Are you fine with that?
Posted by jjj | February 10, 2010, 4:38 pmYep. We fight for justice! You fight for Imperialism!
Posted by OooKhalid | February 11, 2010, 3:55 amhaha … imagine what the israelis would do if Arabs started to "immigrate" en-masse across the Gaza border into israel to settle! I wonder if you'd support that?
Posted by OooKhalid | February 11, 2010, 4:00 amSo lets say, a few people move into your neighborhood that are different from you. You don't like the people, so you attack them, but they defeat you. Then you try to destroy their homes, but again they defeat you, and this time they drive you away from them.
Posted by Admiral_Akbar | February 11, 2010, 5:58 amAre you seriously comparing the situation today to Palestine of the beginning of the 20th century? And since when is immigration imperialism? The Jews got approval to immigrate first from the Ottomans and then from the British. And every piece of land the Jews got before 1948 was because they bought it. You are defending a racist anti-immigration attitude of the Arabs in Palestine. There is nothing just about that.
Posted by jjj | February 11, 2010, 6:28 am//The Jews got approval to immigrate first from the Ottomans and then from the British. And every piece of land the Jews got before 1948 was because they bought it.//
Your delirious. Only 6% of lands before 1948 was owned by Jews. And the rest was illegally taken over from Arab land owners by kicking them out into the desert to die!
Posted by OooKhalid | February 11, 2010, 11:25 amOttomans lost the WW1 to British and, you like it or not, as the winning side, the British had rights for whatever they want to do with every inch of Ottoman land. Its war, friendo, there is nothing called "what was not theirs". Palestine went from Ottoman-controlled to British-controlled, just like that. This always happens in war. As the owner of the land by virtue of its victory in the war, British could do anything in Palestine, thats normal and logical.
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 11, 2010, 2:16 pmYes the Jews owned 6% of the land, but before 1948 they inhabited only the land they owned. The Arabs foolishly rejected the partition plan and therefore lost their land. Since the Jews only helped Palestine prosper and only lived on land they bought, why were the Arabs against this immigration? You haven't answered this question yet. And how does this immigration justify the massacres the Palestinians inflicted on the Jews?
The reason I would not currently agree to Arab immigration to Israel is because we are in a state of war. After there is peace, and if Israelis are allowed to immigrate to the Palestinian state, why not? Of course there would be quotas like in every modern state, but I am not against immigration in principle.
Posted by jjj | February 11, 2010, 3:12 pmisrael has, due to its racist tendencies, refused the right to return to millions of refugees ever since its inception;
where, those Arabs who are left, are being discriminated against day in day out;
where Arabs are slowly being driven out of their ancestral homes in Jerusalem because the govt refused them 'permits'!!
and u tellin me Racist israel is going to allow immigration to Muslim Arabs??
i don't see it possible. maybe when horses lay eggs….
if they are going to allow immigration, why did they allow ethnic cleansing in the first place. these two are contradictory, my friend….
However i will not be able to convince u to the truth; because some people argue to discover the truth, while others argue to confuse. I'm afraid you come under the latter category. So it's useless arguing with you.
I bid thee Peace!
Posted by OooKhalid | February 11, 2010, 4:23 pmHow can you compare the state of war in 1948 to what will happen under peace?
Expulsions of the Arabs were necessary for the survival of Israel. Israel refuses the right of return because it will be the end of Israel. When there is peace, there is no reason there will not be two way immigration. Jews into Palestine and Palestinians into Israel. It will of course be measured and there will be quotas like in all countries, but there will be immigration of a few thousand people per year in each direction.
Arguing with you does seem hopeless. You start from radical axioms such as:
Palestinians cannot be compensated monetarily for land they lost.
And these lead you to radical and unrealistic conclusions.
You should question your axioms if you want to convince anybody.
Posted by jjj | February 11, 2010, 7:33 pmGood for you!
I hope one day you become prime minister of Israel
Posted by OooKhalid | February 13, 2010, 4:02 pmBut it is undeniable that the people of Germany were not naive enough to believe anything nice was happening to the Jews.
The German public was not aware of the Holocaust. After the defeat of the Nazis, the Americans forced some of the German public to tour the concentration camps to see what their government had been doing.
Nazi ideology is a mixture of fascism and extreme Antisemitism
At the heart of Nazi ideology is a racial theory which includes some mythology.
Nazi ideology did include Antisemitism. The Nazi propaganda machine a "Jew problem" publicly. The Holocaust wasn't necessary to keep the Nazis in power. The "final solution" came about after they had already been in power.
Trying to compare the Naqba to the Holocaust is just ridiculous.
The Naqba resulted from Israel's Declaration of Independence and the Arab attempts to destroy Israel. Israel declared independence on May 14, and the Naqba is remembered on May 15.
Posted by Freedumb | February 8, 2010, 6:34 am^^^ The Nazi propaganda machine CREATED a "Jew problem" publicly
Posted by Freedumb | February 8, 2010, 6:35 amWhy should the Nazi atrocities not be seen in the same light as Zionist atrocities?
Zionists have never rounded up people into camps to exterminate them using gas and ovens.
You must understand that Nazis had just as much a 'morally justifiable cause' as the Zionists had for creating the Naqba.
There is absolutely no justification for the Holocaust against Jews. The Germans believed in a racial theory which included mythology. The Holocaust ended up being a plan to rid all of Europe of Jews, for racial reasons.
The Naqba resulted from violence against Israel. The new State was fighting for its very existence, with the Palestinians and other Arabs intending to destroy it.
OooKhalid read what REALLY HAPPENED
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 7:50 pmCall for Palestinians to investigate Gaza 'crimes'
Palestinian human rights activists have called on authorities in the West Bank and Gaza to investigate allegations of war crimes carried out by their forces.
Posted by illuminated | February 5, 2010, 4:16 amhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100207/wl_mideast_a…
HRW says Israel failed to probe Gaza War Crimes!!
Posted by OooKhalid | February 8, 2010, 11:22 amFrom YOUR LINK:
HRW has rejected Hamas's claims, saying that most of the rockets fired during the war hit civilian areas. "Civilians were the target," the group said, and "deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime."
The Goldstone report published in September also said the firing of the hard-to-aim rockets at southern Israel deliberately targeted civilians and could constitute a crime against humanity.
!!!
Posted by Freedumb | February 8, 2010, 10:31 pmHere is some accurate information:
History of Israel: Key events
Posted by Freedumb | February 5, 2010, 8:18 pmHere is some accurate information:
History of Israel: Key events
Posted by Freedumb | February 5, 2010, 8:18 pmHere is some accurate information:
History of Israel: Key events
Posted by Freedumb | February 5, 2010, 8:18 pm"Anybody that denies that ethnic cleansing cannot be ever justified is just a radical. If my survival requires either killing someone or deporting him, then deporting is the better option." (JJJ)
Call me crazy, but…
A) When has ethnic cleansing EVER been defensive? By definition, it includes the killing/removal of civilians, women, children, sick, old, disabled…on the basis of their ethnicity.
B) I was unaware that "your" survival ever depended on either killing or deporting Gazans, or on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947/8 (not sure what you're referring to).
C) You're justifying ethnic cleansing. You're JUSTIFYING ethnic cleansing. Is international law "radical"? Or are you just racist?
Posted by Dan | February 6, 2010, 11:19 pma) Ethnic cleansing is a defensive strategy if not doing it will bring about additional wars and instability. The civil war in Palestine was a result of how the two communities overlapped in their geography. The expulsions reduced the overlap significantly and allowed the emergence of a stable Jewish state.
b) I was giving a general answer. The survival of the Jews, which means that they live in a state that is not permanently in civil strife, required expulsions.
c) Since when is international law the arbiter of moral issues? And why should the Jews have cared about international law when the Arabs just rejected the UN partition resolution? If the Arabs would have accepted the partition, expulsions would be wrong (because they are not needed and therefore morally wrong). But then, the Arabs rejected the international compromise and choose war. What options did the Jews have except to expel some Palestinians to create a viable state? The moment the Arabs took the peaceful solution off the table, it was clear that either Jews would be expelled (most probably murdered like in Hebron and Gush Etzion) or they would expel Arabs. The Jews had no choice but to act as they did.
Posted by jjj | February 7, 2010, 6:17 amEthnic cleansing can never be a defensive strategy. It is a strategy of terrorism and murder against civilians.
As for the rest of your inane points, they are terrifying in their justification of crimes against humanity and historical falsehoods. The Palestinian rejection of having half of their land given to foreigners was a political decision-there was no military threat to the Zionists in Palestine. But thats how Zionism has always worked-steal the land, then provide justifications. We see it today in the West Bank; build settlements, then build the Apartheid Wall to steal further land around them to protect their 'security'. We see it in Gaza; isolate the Strip, then pound it to the atone age when Gazans find a way to fight back. In 1947, Zionists committed ethnic cleansing, then said it was to prevent strife.
You are a terrifying individual.
Posted by MohammadKF | February 7, 2010, 12:30 pmJust as killing someone is justified in self defense, so is expelling someone. This is plain common sense and just your partisanship does not allow you to grasp this obvious point.
The UN partition was the only peaceful compromise on the table. It was supported by the majority of the international community including both the Soviet Union and the US. Again, the plan did not take any land from any Arab. Ownership of the land remained the SAME. The plan just determined in which country each land would be, not the ownership of the land which would not change. So the Arabs saying that half their land was taken is just plain false. The Arab rejection of the partition plan was a de facto declaration of war. They rejected the plan because they were sure they would beat the Jews in the ensuing war. They made a terrible mistake and are still paying the price. But it is their responsibility. I am very thankful that the Jews won the war because I know that if the Arabs had won, the Jews would not have been expelled, they would have been systematically murdered after their women would have been raped wholesale. That is what I find the most hypocritical about your position. You know that if the foot was on the other shoe, their would have been a genocide, yet you complain about how the Palestinians were treated in defeat.
Yes, I am no different than millions of other Israelis and Jews that have a different point of view than yours. We are very terrifying. I am sure you are afraid seating next to us on planes and buses. What is disturbing is how dogmatic you are and how you are unable to take into account any evidence that does not fit your narrow point of view.
Posted by jjj | February 7, 2010, 6:14 pmMohammadKF – constantly insulting people does not help you make your points.
It is true that the Naqba was terribly unfortunate for the Palestinians. But to deny what brought it about is pointless.
there was no military threat to the Zionists in Palestine
1920 Palestine riotsor Nebi Musa riots
Jaffa riots1921
1929 Palestine riots
The Hebron Massacre
The 1929 Safed massacre
The 1936 – 1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
The Palestinian rejection of having half of their land given to foreigners was a political decision
Palestinian Arabs, supported by the Arab Liberation Army, and Palestinian Jews, fought against each other while the region was still fully under British rule. Transjordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq sent expeditionary forces to Palestine that fought the Israel Defence Forces.
MohammadKF are you aware of the facts of the 1948 War in Palestine?
Due to the war, demographic changes occurred in the country. Between 700,000 and 750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and became Palestinian refugees. On the other side, around 10,000 Jews were also forced to leave their homes in Palestine
In the three years following the war, 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel, mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands. Around 136,000 were some of the 250,000 displaced Jews of World War II.[6] Most others were part of the 758,000 to 900,000 Jews who left or were expelled from Arab countries between 1948 and the Six-Day War.
Posted by Freedumb | February 8, 2010, 6:52 amjjj, do you really think that the international compromise was fair? Was the land divided according to the ratio of the existing population of the Zionists and Arabs?
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 7, 2010, 6:14 pmInfidelRudy,
Both sides at the time thought the compromise was not fair. The Jews were initially promised much more land for their homeland and thought it unfair that they received so much less. The Arabs thought that nothing should have been promised to the Jews anyway. The Arabs were against the notion of a Jewish state, period. Any amount of land given to the Jewish state they would have seen as unfair.
I think it is pretty fair as the Jewish part was mostly the Negev desert which was very sparsely inhabited and not considered valuable. Plus, I emphasize again, that land given to the Jewish state, that was owned by Arabs, would still be owned by Arabs after the partition. No land was taken from anybody.
But frankly, I think it is a moot question whether it was fair or not. It was the only peaceful compromise on the table. To the extent one cares about international law, this was the only option for a solution based on international law. This is why I personally do not regard international law very much. I think the Arabs should have accepted the partition if they now want to claim that the dispute should be solved based on international law. If the Arabs can pick and choose what parts of the law they follow, I do not want any part in that charade.
Posted by jjj | February 7, 2010, 10:15 pm"… that land given to the Jewish state, that was owned by Arabs, would still be owned by Arabs after the partition. No land was taken from anybody. " – can you please elaborate on this? How can the arabs own the land that was given to the Jewish state? Then why partition at all mattered?
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 7, 2010, 11:50 pmThe partition only determined in which country's borders the piece of land was, not the ownership which would remain the same. As an example, imagine John Smith, an American owns a piece of land in northern Vermont. The US decides to return this land to Canada. Smith remains the owner of the land, but the land is now in Canada and not the US. Or take the northern part of Ghajar in Lebanon which Israel currently occupies. The land belongs to the villagers of Ghajar and will remain under this ownership if Israel returns it to Lebanon or Syria (from which it was originally conquered).
The question of which country a piece of land resides, is different from the question who owns the land. The partition just decided on borders, NOT ownership. Therefore NO piece of land was taken from ANY Arab by the partition.
Posted by jjj | February 8, 2010, 1:02 amThe partition mattered because the Arabs were not willing to live in a Jewish state, even though it was clear that if they accepted the partition it would also become an Arab majority state very quickly! I am sure that any rational Arab is aware that rejection the UN partition was really stupid.
Posted by jjj | February 8, 2010, 1:12 amhmm… I think you have a point. I would love to see a counterview on this from Sean or MohammedKF.
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 8, 2010, 1:25 amReally? That must be why Israel made an absentee property law…any land that is deemed "deserted" will be "converted".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_pro…
Posted by Dan | February 8, 2010, 9:26 pmWhy is what your saying relevant at all? If the partition would have been accepted by the Arabs they would not have left or been expelled and their land would not be deserted and this law would not be applicable. The simple point is that contrary to what you believe, the partition did not take any land from the Arabs.
Posted by jjj | February 8, 2010, 10:09 pmthanks for this perspective, jjj. It somewhat changed my perception about the conflict.
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 9, 2010, 1:29 amYou are more than welcome, and thank you for keeping an open mind.
Posted by jjj | February 9, 2010, 4:58 amHow is that relevant? We are talking about the UN Resolution here. The Absentee Property Law was made in 1950, following the war in 1948, which was a direct consequence of the Arab rejection of the UN Resolution. If the Palestinians could retain their lands according to the UN Resolution, I dont think there was any reason to reject that.
Posted by InfidelRudy | February 9, 2010, 1:27 amPalestinians have the right for all thier land back. Just because you have religious connection to a place does not sanctify murder. Infact if your religion was respectful of human rights israelis would not just invade, murder by thousands, create refugee crisis in the region and then say they are people of God.
Did Palestinians start any war here??
I think the fact the british government helped facilitate the initial invasion speaks louder than words.
Israeli dont even respect human rights or any authority. If they respected thier religion then they would know who was thier brethren. 18:18 And one would rise from thier brethren. prophecy of the last prophet. brother from the farther of abraham and differnt mother. Hajr and Sara wives of Abraham.
Posted by Islam is truth | February 7, 2010, 11:22 pmYou are a hypocrite of the worse kind. The Muslims created their empire by the sword and through forced conversion. The Islamic conquest was the definition of relying on religion to murder. How dare you talk about religion sanctifying murder. There are fatwas doing that everyday.
Posted by jjj | February 8, 2010, 1:17 amHey…Keep your cool. You have done a good job of trying to be rational so far. Don't lose it now at the sound of Islam, buddy.
Posted by OooKhalid | February 8, 2010, 11:52 amI answer people based on what and how they write. Some people need a wake up jolt. The tone I agree is aggressive but still rational. If I am mistaken about any fact, or my argumentation is problematic, please correct me.
Posted by jjj | February 8, 2010, 2:49 pmJust because you have religious connection to a place does not sanctify murder.
Tell that to THESE GUYS
Posted by Freedumb | February 8, 2010, 7:04 amthere was no military threat to the Zionists in Palestine
Nazis ‘shipped arms to Palestinians’
British National Archives unveil presence of Nazi S.S. agents in Mandatory Palestine, working closely with Palestinian leaders
Nazis planned Palestine subversion
The Germans planned – with the support of the Grand Mufti – to arm Palestinian villagers and incite them to rise up against the Jews.
The 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine lasted from 30 November 1947, the date of the United Nations vote in favour of the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the UN Partition Plan, to the termination of the British Mandate itself on 14 May 1948.
From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarized, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousands of volunteers, al-Husayni organised the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem
Posted by Freedumb | February 8, 2010, 9:58 amProminent political commentator Professor Alan Dershowitz slammed jurist Richard Goldstone, the architect of a UN report which accuses Israel of Gaza war crimes, saying he is a traitor to the Jewish people, Army Radio reported Sunday.
Dershowitz and Goldstone have been colleagues and close friends for many years before the UN Gaza probe, but once Goldstone published his report the ties between the two were severed. “The Goldstone report is a defamation written by an evil, evil man,” Dershowitz said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146392.html
Posted by OooKhalid | February 8, 2010, 11:30 amProminent political commentator Professor Alan Dershowitz slammed jurist Richard Goldstone, the architect of a UN report which accuses Israel of Gaza war crimes, saying he is a traitor to the Jewish people, Army Radio reported Sunday.
Dershowitz and Goldstone have been colleagues and close friends for many years before the UN Gaza probe, but once Goldstone published his report the ties between the two were severed. “The Goldstone report is a defamation written by an evil, evil man,” Dershowitz said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146392.html
Posted by OooKhalid | February 8, 2010, 11:30 amProminent political commentator Professor Alan Dershowitz slammed jurist Richard Goldstone, the architect of a UN report which accuses Israel of Gaza war crimes, saying he is a traitor to the Jewish people, Army Radio reported Sunday.
Dershowitz and Goldstone have been colleagues and close friends for many years before the UN Gaza probe, but once Goldstone published his report the ties between the two were severed. “The Goldstone report is a defamation written by an evil, evil man,” Dershowitz said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146392.html
Posted by OooKhalid | February 8, 2010, 11:30 am